RE: [Syslog-sec] RE: While you are at it ...

["Rainer Gerhards" <rgerhards@hq.adiscon.com>]

Sharon,

thanks for the comment. I'll change it to RFC XXXX.

Rainer 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org 
> [mailto:syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org] On Behalf Of 
> Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 1:58 PM
> To: syslog
> Subject: RE: [Syslog-sec] RE: While you are at it ...
> 
> 
> 
> </Rainer>
> > 
> > b) RFC9999 I find confusing, irritating even; normative
> > references to I-Ds is
> > elementary RFC-editing, they deal with it every day; put in 
> > the I-D name and
> > trust the editor to sort it out:-)
> 
> As far as I have been told, the way it currently is is the 
> way to do it.
> Once it is through the last call, *I* will get a last editing 
> chance at
> which time this is replaced by the actual RFC 1. As far as 
> I've been told, a
> normative RFC must only refer to other RFCs, not I-Ds. If it 
> does, it won't
> be normative until the other I-D has become an RFC.
> </Rainer>
> 
> No, more typically one would say RFCXXXX with a note that the 
> RFC editor
> should fill this in when the number is available. RFC9999 is much less
> likely to be caught before publication. 
> 
> Sharon
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog-sec mailing list
> Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
> http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec
> 
_______________________________________________
Syslog-sec mailing list
Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec