Subject: Re: [radext] #190 (bigger-packets): Does the document require an "Updates" relationship to RFC2865?

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:39:26 -0000

#190: Does the document require an "Updates" relationship to RFC2865?

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => wontfix

Comment:

 The author's preference is to hold the Updates until the document goes to
 standards track. No dissent on the mailing list, so let's do that.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-radext-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  enhancement              |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
Component:  bigger-packets           |     Version:
 Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:  wontfix
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/190#comment:2>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>