Formally, no, this could be processed as an independent submission. But I think review by this WG is desirable anyway. Could the chairs give it 5 minutes on the agenda? Having written the original faulty ABNF, I feel some responsibility here...
Brian Zefram wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Title : Textual Representation of IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses > > Author(s) : A. Main > > Filename : draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep-01.txt > > Pages : 12 > > Date : 2003-10-23 > ... > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep-01.txt > > I've not been able to work on this for most of the last six months due > to personal problems, but I've finally got round to handling the comments > from the first draft and I'm in full working order again. > > It was pointed out that this ought to be standards-track, and I've > labelled this draft accordingly. Does this need to be adopted as a WG > draft in order to be published on the standards track? I'm not clear > on the procedure here. If there's any non-trivial decision to be made > about the relation between the WG and this draft then it could probably > be decided quickly in Minneapolis. (I won't be in Minneapolis, btw -- > I'm not going to the US under the present regime.) > > -zefram > -- > Andrew Main (Zefram) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
