Re: MARID back from the grave?

Graham, You are right. WG dtafts have a more official standing iin the IETF, they will, most likely, become an RFC. Individual drafts have no assurance, and most do not. John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinf

Re: MARID back from the grave?

Should there be provision in this naming scheme for the merging of two individual drafts into one wg draft ? Regards Marshall Eubanks On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:14:51 -0800 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:59:19 +, Dave Singer wrote: > > a) renaming of the roo

Re: MARID back from the grave?

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:59:19 +, Dave Singer wrote: >  a) renaming of the root portion of the file-name is permitted, nay > >  encouraged, to identify whether the draft is currently individual, or >  owned by a group (or even to select a 'better' name for other >  reasons); >  b) the revision n

Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC

At 11:30 25/02/2005, Carl Malamud wrote: > A very simple solution would be to write the documents in French :-) That would be illegal. ;) This was a joke, but you make it an issue: illegal for who? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.o

Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC

*> *> > A very simple solution would be to write the documents in French :-) *> > *> *> That would be illegal. ;) *> *> Carl *> Ah, but here is the clever bit. We don't CALL it French, we call it Freedom Language. Bob Braden ___

2004/05 NomCom Selections

I am pleased to announce the results of the 2004-2005 NomCom selection process. The IAB has approved the IESG candidates and the ISOC board has approved the IAB candidates. Please welcome them in their roles: IESG IETF Chair/General Area Director - Brian Carpenter Applications Area Director -

Re: Last Call: 'Labels in Subject Headers Considered Ineffective At Best' to Informational RFC

> A very simple solution would be to write the documents in French :-) > That would be illegal. ;) Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: MARID back from the grave?

Um, I'm maybe an innocent bystander here, but perhaps the following works? a) renaming of the root portion of the file-name is permitted, nay encouraged, to identify whether the draft is currently individual, or owned by a group (or even to select a 'better' name for other reasons); b) the revi

RE: MARID back from the grave?

Spencer, This was raised in the Problem WG, where I pointed out that all I-Ds are *not* equal - even though the current credo says that they are. Over the years, there has been an implicit status associated with *WG* drafts, which has not been associated with *individual* drafts. AFAIK this poin

Renaming new WG drafts (was: RE: MARID back from the grave?)

> ... "it's just a name" - and it's not like working groups are > (or that working groups should be) consistent in when they adopt > a draft as a working group draft. I actually believe it is useful to rename drafts when they are adopted as WG documents. An individual draft is indeed the authors