> --On Friday, July 15, 2011 15:50 -0700 S Moonesamy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >...
> > I forgot to mention (off-list conversation) to Murray that RFC
> > 3462 which is currently a Draft Standard is listed as a work
> > item for this WG. If an update which does not affect
> > advancement is needed by the MARF working group, I personally
> > am open to discussing about it in this working group. I sent
> > an email to Gregory Vaudreuil, the author of RFC 3462, about
> > the proposed charter. I have not received any reply yet.
> Since it is conceivable that something depends on, and assumes,
> the existing restriction, I don't see any way to remove it that
> would not require a trip back through Proposed Standard.
This is one of the reasons why I prefer to see such restrictions lifted
in separate documents. Once the separate document (which can either be
one limited to removing the restriction or something more general) advances
the restriction can be removed from the original document without a reset.
More generally, this is another case of the stuff that John has been talking
about on the IETF list: Our processes have not kept up with the complexity of
our present documents. Back when documents were, on average, much simpler, it
may have made sense to reset an entire document or group of documents to
proposed simply to make a tweak like this, but these days it's causing more
problems than it solves.
Ned
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
