[ietf-nntp] Re: ietf-nntp Niggles

Charles Lindsey chl at clerew.man.ac.uk
Mon Dec 8 22:25:27 PST 2003


In <01L2QD830SII00HOW2 at mauve.mrochek.com> ned+ietf-nntp at innosoft.com writes:

>However, all this is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Why? Because the
>whole point of including the phrase "IESG-approved" is to make IESG approval an
>*additional* requirement for publication of an NNTP extension specification.
>Just because this requirement does not normally exist for publication of an
>experimental extensions doesn't mean a specification can't add it.


>SMTP extensions are similarly constrained (I suspect this is where the idea
>came from) and this set of constraints has worked very well in practice.

OK, I see similar wording in RFC 2821. But I would still have thought that
"IESG-accepted" conveyed better what actually happens.

Does the IESG ever add "The IESG approves of this" to an Experimental RFC?
Surely what the IESG does in actual practice is to "accept" the RFC (by
letting the RFD Editor publish it). That seems to mean "this is not (yet)
a proposed standard, but the IESG is happy for this experiment to go
ahead".

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list