Sure… as you can see the actual document carries an open source Apache
license. :-)
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:04 PM Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <
cem.f.karan.civ@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Looks good! Do you mind if we borrow the status definitions for other
projects? I'm working on some rust code, and just realized that your RFC
status page would work really well for me on my project.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
------------------------------
*From:* nanomsg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [nanomsg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on
behalf of Garrett D'Amore [garrett@xxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Monday, November 27, 2017 1:11 PM
*To:* nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [Non-DoD Source] [nanomsg] RFC repository updates
All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained
within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web
browser.
------------------------------
I’ve added a definition document describing the “status” of RFCs here:
Caution-http://nanomsg.org/rfcs/sp-status-v1.html ;< Caution-
http://nanomsg.org/rfcs/sp-status-v1.html ;>
I’ve also updated the TLS RFC, here:
Caution-http://nanomsg.org/rfcs/sp-tls-v1.html ;< Caution-
http://nanomsg.org/rfcs/sp-tls-v1.html ;>
I would like to have folks review these documents. My intention is to
begin transitioning them from “Draft” status to “Stable” status.
Probably in the future we will use github issues to track these. The
github repo is here:
Caution-https://github.com/nanomsg/rfcs ;< Caution-
https://github.com/nanomsg/rfcs ;>
Thanks!
