luname_print

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Bob,

We discussed this document during yesterday's IESG teleconference.
We are very reluctant to publish a document as an RFC when you are
about to release a "better way".  Labels as "informational" or
"experimental" aren't enough--there is just too long a history of people
interpreting them as standards/recommendations and implementing them.

I would suggest the following:

 o You move ahead as efficiently as possible with the "real" extensions
     document.
 o Until that document is finished (a couple of months?) you put
     luname_print on ice as an Internet-Draft (i.e., just leave it there).
 o Once you finish the extensions document, you review luname_print
     to see if publication would still have value.  If so, you revise
     it to reflect its exact relationship to the standards-track
     extensions doc.

--john