I find myself torn on the topic of how specifica this document should be
in regard to the IAOC.
It does strike me that the comments regarding the IAD are well-taken,
and maybe should be replaced with more general references.
With regard to the quesiton of the IASA vs the IAOC, apparently, the
IAOC has developed a set of conventions, and they requested the forms of
reference. I am inclined to let them refer to themselves as they wish.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/10/2011 11:40 AM, SM wrote:
...
> In some parts, the draft refers specifically to the IAOC (e.g. the
> Abstract), the IAD (e.g. Section 4.2) or IASA. The IASA is ultimately
> responsible for the financial activities. The details of the mechanism
> is left to RFC 4071. If the aim is not to update RFC 4071 or create
> dependencies on specific parts of that RFC, the draft should refer to
> IASA without going into the details of that activity.
..
> Regards,
> -sm
>
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@...
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
