[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft


--On onsdag, april 09, 2003 10:34:28 -0700 Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> wrote:


I wonder about the "is considering do so".

should be "is considering TO do so", btw


I think by rthe time this doc gets published, we have considered it and
decided. So WOuld the abstract not be better to say:

I thought it would be misleading for the ID containing the request
for variance that we are soliciting community input for through the
IETF LC to say that we've already done so.

We can, of course change the text to reflect the history during
author-48 period.
experience shows that we're prone to miss such fancy footwork.

what I usually do is to write the document as if it was approved, and add a STATUS OF DOCUMENT: THIS IS STILL A DRAFT somewhere at the front to clarify that the I-D is not final.

Less chances of messing up or delaying at Auth48.