Paul, That seems like the most resonable approach to me. Are current requests archived now?
John -- original message -- Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt From: Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 07/22/2005 11:03 pm At 3:51 PM -0400 7/22/05, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: >On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:35, Sam Hartman wrote: >> BTW, this conversation and a side conversation with John has convinced >> me that IESG review should involve a call for comments phase. > >A call for comments requires having something for the community to >comment on. > >Will an internet draft will be required from folks seeking IESG review >of a proposed assignment, or will we invent yet another mechanism for >circulating a description of the proposal to the community? It would make sense for the IESG to send to the community what was sent to them; that way, we can judge what they are judging. If it was a pointer to an Internet Draft, great; a pointer to some other document(s) works just as well. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
