On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:11:06PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
>> I suggest publication of the I-Ds that describe the RA option
>> and the WKA approach in their current forms as Informational,
>> followed by the publication of the final version of the
>> summary doc as Informational.
>>
>> This plan would archive our results and meet the requirements
>> for publication.
>>
>> - Ralph
>>
>> At 08:33 AM 6/24/2004 -0700, David Meyer wrote:
>> >On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:23:35AM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>> >>> David Meyer wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > In any event, we
>> >>> > should adhere to the publication standards.
>> >>>
>> >>> Sure. Even IDs have their own rules, which is a lot less
>> >>> strict than those for RFCs, though.
>> >>>
>> >>> The question is on the publication standard as WHAT?
>> >>>
>> >>> > Seems to me that we should publish it as informational to
>> >>> > capture the work that has been done.
>> >>>
>> >>> That's too bad. :-)
>> >>>
>> >>> Seriously speaking, then, we should publish all the proposals
>> >>> as separate RFCs or put more explanations in the draft so that
>> >>> no additional explanations are neccesary.
>> >>>
>> >>> Have you really confirmed it with ADs? I'm afraid you have.
>> >
>> > Nope, I have not.
>> >
>> > Dave
Ralph,
While I agree with your suggestions (they are consistent
with mine), I dropped a note to our ADs to ask them what
they thought (as per Ohta-san's suggestion). I'll report
back or just copy [EMAIL PROTECTED] into the thread when I see
a respoonse.
Dave
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
