Peter, Thanks for promptly completing these changes.
The draft version you attached satisfies the minor comments I had provided. This draft will be completely ready for submission to the RFC Editor for publishing as a BCP RFC - as soon as Mark Townsley is satisfied with the resolution of the reference issues... -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: Peter Arberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:22 PM --> To: 'Mark Townsley'; 'Gray, Eric' --> Cc: 'Vince Mammoliti'; Gen-ART@ietf.org --> Subject: [Gen-art] RE: draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt --> --> Hi, --> --> thanks Eric for the review and the good change suggestions. --> --> I have updated the document with all your suggestions, and attached --> it for reference. --> --> With regards to the informative references, Mark what do --> you suggest ? --> --> Do we wait for [BERRY] and [ARBERG] to get RFC numbers and --> then move --> them to normative references ? --> --> With regards to [CARREL] I do not think anyone is looking --> at moving this --> draft forward, but it is implemented in BRAS equipment --> today, and is in --> use in networks, so we somehow need to keep the reference. --> --> thanks, --> Peter --> --> > -----Original Message----- --> > From: Mark Townsley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> > Sent: 31. maj 2006 15:04 --> > To: Gray, Eric --> > Cc: Peter Arberg; Vince Mammoliti; Gen-ART@ietf.org --> > Subject: Re: draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt --> > --> > Gray, Eric wrote: --> > > --> > ============================================================== --> > ========= --> > > --> > > First, while I have to agree the three references listed as --> > Informative --> > > are what I would imagine most people could agree to be just --> > that, it is --> > > probable that IANA cannot create the registries indicated --> > until these --> > > references are published, and possible that IANA will not --> > want this to --> > > be published until they can create the corresponding --> > registries. This --> > > means that these references are essentially Normative in --> > their effect --> > > on publication of this draft. --> > > --> > > Is IANA going to be willing to allow publication of this --> > document as a --> > > BCP without first creating the registries? Can IANA create --> > a registry --> > > with references to WIP? --> > > --> > > --> > -------------------------------------------------------------- --> > --------- --> > > --> > > --> > Indeed you have uncovered a couple of bugs here, Thanks Eric. --> > --> > I went to check up on these three references. The [BERRY] --> > reference is --> > for a draft that was actually approved by the IESG back --> in Jan, but --> > seems to have popped out of the RFC Editor's queue shortly --> > after. I had --> > not noticed and am following up. --> > --> > The [ARBERG] reference was just approved days ago, I assume it is --> > advancing normally. Michelle (IANA) specifically acknowledged --> > the IANA --> > considerations section (which provides a cross-reference --> to the iana --> > document) when this happened last week. --> > --> > With respect to the [CARREL] reference (PADN and PADM), no --> > one has asked --> > me to publish this, and I am not aware of its --> advancement. The values --> > are FCFS, so technically a draft is not needed, but it would --> > be good to --> > know if anyone is going to advance this or not. Perhaps it --> > should not be --> > in the initial list? Authors, do we know if this is --> > implemented and in use? --> > --> > Thanks, --> > --> > - Mark --> > --> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art