Hi Allison, On 1/7/16 2:26 PM, Mankin, Allison wrote: > Alvaro, > > Thanks for the update! I did quickly learn my error on this. It shows > how we skim familiar things like Last Calls - I had expected it was PS and > I didn¹t see the IS designation there at all. > > I wasn¹t able to be on the Webex for the telechat today. > > What happens now? A two week PS Last Call? (a question for JoelŠ)
As an AD (at least for the next 3 months), I don't think we need a new LC. Rather, we can fix the meta data, announce the fix to the community, and continue processing the document. Brian > > Onward and upward, > > Allison > > On 1/7/16, 2:19 PM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aret...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> On 1/6/16, 11:55 AM, "Mankin, Allison" <aman...@verisign.com> wrote: >> >> Allison: >> >> Hi! >> >>> I think you've found an XML editing bug on our part. >> >> No, actually the problem is not in the document, but in how the "Intended >> RFC Status" was set on the datatracker page: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis/ >> >> Alvaro. >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
