Subject: Re: When can we provide stable references to other standards bodies

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:51:46 -0500

On Sep 29, 2005, at 6:29 PM, David B Harrington wrote:

> And I'd be willing to wait until after the two-month appeals window as
> well, to ensure relative stability.

That works for me too.

I'd even consider a policy whereby, after the two-month window, we  
would commit to publish "failed" documents as direct-to-historical.

So let's say something has been "pre-RFC" approved for six months and  
is in the rfc-ed queue when we find a glaring error.

We'd have to fix the error in a new draft, run it through last call,  
approve it, and get it a new RFC-to-be number. Then when the old  
draft popped out of rfc-ed (say, two years later), it would be in the  
"historical" category, shown as obsoleted by the new RFC-to-be.

But I would hope that just doesn't happen very often. That said, I  
think it would have just happened with the SIMPLE XCAP draft  
(approved 06/24/2005, right at three months ago), where OMA found a  
problem while the doc was in the rfc-ed queue, so we have proof that  
it COULD happen.

--
Dean

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:38:39 -0700

> would commit to publish "failed" documents as direct-to-historical.

Given the low occurrence of changes at this stage, any of the proposal seem
very workable to me.