> Thanks. I forgot to say on (c) that there MUST > be as many entries in the revision history as the > revision number indicates (i.e. none for revision > 00, and so on).
don't do that. it will add an unnecessary and often useless barrier to publication of I-Ds I-Ds are supposed to be a quick-and-dirty mechanism for circulating (sometimes quite rough) drafts among interested parties. we don't need to impose a complicated revision history mechanism just because we have two different cutoff dates for I-Ds. and there's certainly no need to impose such a requirement on drafts that (a) aren't WG work items and (b) are submitted before the earlier cutoff date. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
