On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have noticed that around draft -04 you have changed the status of > the document form experimental to standards track. Given that this > work is not chartered in the IETF, or being directly sponsored by an > AD, I was wondering what your plans are for the document? > > Note that to receive an RFC number, it is enough to submit this as an > individual submission as Informational. But if you want it to be an > Internet Standard, the process gets a lot longer and complicated. > > I would be happy to help either way.
Eran, thanks for noticing (I don't think anyone else is paying attention). I changed the draft to standards track after email discussions w/ Lisa Dussealt, IETF Applications area director, although I don't remember all the details offhand, but yes I do remember it making things longer & more complicated. I'm not in a rush. at the same time, I think we've had what the IETF appreciates for quite a while now: "rough consensus and running code" all help hammering things out w/in the IETF community & making the spec/draft airtight will be great. I've been thinking about changing it to Informational as well. Are there any drawbacks for Informational vs Standards Track? we'd be happy for your guidance. we don't have the funds to visit IETF meetings (maybe in the future) & know you've been lately, & working on OAuth w/ the IETF so any help would be really nice! -- (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ] )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
