Following a request to look at this document, and with only a cursory look
at the archives, I'm confused.
The note is always intended to be included in the document itself, right?
Is this change designed to compel, as opposed to request, the RFC Editor to
include the note?
If the answer to those
--On Monday, August 31, 2009 16:29 +0300 Jari Arkko
wrote:
> I would like to get some further input from the community on
> this draft.
>...
> And now back to the input that I wanted to hear. I would like
> to get a sense from the list whether you prefer (a) that any
> exceptional IESG note is
101 - 102 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
