At 14:42 26-05-2009, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
There have been two Last Call notices sent to the IETF for:
'Internet Mail Architecture' as a
Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a concern about the intended publication
status of this document and wishes to confirm the community's prefere
> Please indicate your preference for publishing the document as:
> 1. Proposed Standard, as queried in the two Last Call notices
Standards Track is an odd category for an architectural document. If
the argument is "it needs to be on standards track in order to have
more weight", I understand
On May 27, 2009, at 20:40, Doug Otis wrote:
[...no way to...] remain compliant with any fixed architectural
concept
We might need a new document class, "Best Current Architecture" (kind
of the inverse of BCP).
Gruesse, Carsten
___
Ietf mailing
On May 26, 2009, at 8:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
'Internet Mail Architecture' as a
Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a concern about the intended publication
status of this document and wishes to confirm the community's
preferences.
Folks,
As the document
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
'Internet Mail Architecture' as a Proposed
Standard
The IESG has received a concern about the intended publication status of
this document and wishes to confirm the community's preferences.
Folks,
As the document's author, my preference for its status is obvio
On 5/26/09 at 10:42 PM +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
'Internet Mail Architecture' as a
Proposed Standard
Please indicate your preference for publishing the document as:
1. Proposed Standard, as queried in the two Last Call notices
I believe it should be Proposed Standard.
Also plea
[I am trying to avoid crossposting to 5 different mailing lists.]
--- Begin Message ---
There have been two Last Call notices sent to the IETF for:
'Internet Mail Architecture' as a
Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a concern about the intended publication status of
this documen
