I suggest publication of the I-Ds that describe the RA option and the WKA approach in their current forms as Informational, followed by the publication of the final version of the summary doc as Informational.
This plan would archive our results and meet the requirements for publication.
- Ralph
At 08:33 AM 6/24/2004 -0700, David Meyer wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:23:35AM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote: >> David Meyer wrote: >> >> > In any event, we >> > should adhere to the publication standards. >> >> Sure. Even IDs have their own rules, which is a lot less >> strict than those for RFCs, though. >> >> The question is on the publication standard as WHAT? >> >> > Seems to me that we should publish it as informational to >> > capture the work that has been done. >> >> That's too bad. :-) >> >> Seriously speaking, then, we should publish all the proposals >> as separate RFCs or put more explanations in the draft so that >> no additional explanations are neccesary. >> >> Have you really confirmed it with ADs? I'm afraid you have.
Nope, I have not.
Dave
. dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
