5987bis writeup #271

Open
mnot opened this Issue Nov 21, 2016 · 2 comments

Projects

None yet

2 participants

@mnot
Contributor
mnot commented Nov 21, 2016

A few things I noticed / need to ask:

  • Is the Abstract still suitable? I note it doesn't mention 5987.

  • Is the intended status really Internet Standard? Given that 2026 requires "a high degree of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet community" and in light of the doubt around the use of this format, it seems like Proposed Standard might be more appropriate. Also, we'd need to document the implementations.

  • @reschke - If you have direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document, has it already been disclosed?

@mnot mnot added the 5987bis label Nov 21, 2016
@reschke
Contributor
reschke commented Nov 21, 2016
  • I think advice from the IESG varies about whether the abstract should include this. Maybe ask our AD before proceeding.

  • It is definitively mature, and we currently do not have an alternative. That said, where does the implementation documentation requirement come from? FWIW, there's Appendix B.

  • I'm not aware of any IPR related to my profiling of RFC 2231.

@reschke
Contributor
reschke commented Jan 7, 2017

After checking a few recent RFCs, I see that obsoletions are indeed usually mentioned in the abstract. Added that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment