The PANA framework document change was purely editorial. We simply cut text and sections.
The PANA base specification change involved technical change, in form of removing two of the features (discovery and serial authentication). Those were clean removals, i.e., no impact on the rest of the design. That, in affect, was mostly editorial too. Alper > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Zorn (gwz) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:20 PM > To: Alper Yegin; Mark Townsley (townsley) > Cc: Jari Arkko; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Pana] Revised I-Ds to IESG > > Alper Yegin <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribbled on Thursday, August > 24, 2006 12:42 AM: > > > I don't see a good reason why we should deviate from the process. > > Hmm. I thought that the process was for documents to pass IETF Last > Call (which these have not, in anything like their current form) before > IESG review. If the changes made to the documents had been minor > editorial/technical changes, then it would be appropriate to continue > directly to IESG review; my understanding is that that is not the case. > > > > > Alper > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Glen Zorn (gwz) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:12 AM > >> To: Alper Yegin; Mark Townsley (townsley) > >> Cc: Jari Arkko; [email protected] > >> Subject: RE: [Pana] Revised I-Ds to IESG > >> > >> > >> Hi Mark, > >> > >> PANA WG has completed revising the two WG documents based on the IETF > >> last call feedback. Could you please take them to IESG review now? > >> > >>> Wouldn't a more appropriate next step be another IETF Last Call? _______________________________________________ Pana mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
