Amanda, Carsten, Rob, based upon the discussion this week, we will still need brski.jp.
We will also still need brski.rjp, but the latter will be different in its description. I think that it's best to just defer the IANA actions until the document is revised. Rob, I think that the document will need to return to the ANIMA WG for yet another WGLC on the changes... I've never had this situation where a document gets passed by the IESG, but fails at IANA Expert Review? I'm sure it's happened before. I anticipate working on the revisions at the end of next week. I will post a summary to the ANIMA (and CORE) ML later tonight to explain the discussion on Wednesday. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
