[NNTP] NNTP Extensions drafts

[Charles Lindsey]

In <4291EC5F.6040104 at oceana.com> Ken Murchison <ken at oceana.com> writes:

>So, do you recommend that I only reference the existing RFCs and not 
>worry about the fact that they are being updated?

If there exist some ID for RFCxxxxbis and there is a reasonable prospect
that it will be accepted by the IETF on a suitable timescale, then the
draft should refer to RFCxxxxbis.

If this later turns out to be a critical item holding up final
publication, and supposing we are not absolutely dependent on some feature
in RFCxxxxbis, then the RFC Editor should be asked to fall back to
RFCxxxx.

Ideally, there should be some meta-text in the draft saying that such
might happen.

Is that a possible mechanism within the IETF framework? All the documents
involved, including our drafts, may or may not get held up during the Last
Call process, and it is hard to predict in advance the order in which they
will finally get released.

-- 
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