> -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:15 AM > To: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Techspec] Issue 4: Publication time criteria > > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote: > > Potential Req-INDEX-6 - The IETF can indicate to the publisher that > > it should change the status of a document (e.g., to Historical) and > > this should be reflected in the index. > > As a matter of fact, this is a current requirement. > > > Add a bullet to Section 5 (IETF Implications of Technical > > Publication Requirements) indicating that the IETF needs to > define a > > process to decide and inform the technical publisher of status > > changes to published documents as the result of an appeal, legal > > action, or some other procedural action. > > As you note, there may be some debate on what "indicate" means. Is a > request by IESG or some other body enough? Does this require an RFC? > I think in the past all these have been done using a text in an RFC.
SH: Thanks, I'll change it to a current requirement instead of a potential requirement. I guess the permissible mechanisms for indication need documented within the IETF. > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
