Acknowledged that Issue 130 is open for this.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 7:21 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Re-reading section 9.5, I think we should rewrite this to mention the
> registry being deprecated.
>
> I open an issue on this
>
> tim
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 12:00 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
Re-reading section 9.5, I think we should rewrite this to mention the
registry being deprecated.
I open an issue on this
tim
On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 12:00 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Generally they will leave it and mark Obsolete. This should be called out
> in the RFC.
> (I have not looked
Generally they will leave it and mark Obsolete. This should be called out
in the RFC.
(I have not looked right now).
tim
On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 11:42 AM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 6:49 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
>> since we removed the rf= tag (format of failure
On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 6:49 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> since we removed the rf= tag (format of failure reports), do we still
> need to tackle the IANA registry? Since we only use one format, it
> makes little sense. However, the registry actually exists. Is it
> possible to delete or
Hi,
since we removed the rf= tag (format of failure reports), do we still
need to tackle the IANA registry? Since we only use one format, it
makes little sense. However, the registry actually exists. Is it
possible to delete or obsolete it, or does it have to stay there as a
relict for
