Yes, we have to get rid of the TBDs before sending the draft to the iesg. From: paws [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Michael Head Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 2:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [paws] Fixing/uniquifying TBD for etsi/ofcom rulesets?
Greetings PAWSians, Currently 9.2.2.2 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-paws-protocol-07#section-9.2.2.2) has "Ruleset name: TBD." Is now the right time to pick a name for this ruleset? It would be nice to have something in place as the Ofcom whitespace pilot trials will be happening soon and both device and database implementations will be hitting question in the near term. Perhaps "ETSI-EN-301-598-1.0.0-draft" would be better than "TBD" if we can't declare a final ruleset name? Even if a TBD is the right thing to have in place for now, should it at least be uniqueified (e.g., "TBD1" as described in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-5.1)? Relatedly, should the reference in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-paws-protocol-07#section-13.2 also be updated to point at http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301598/01.00.00_20/en_301598v010000a.pdf or is that something to be done after the draft exists the working group? I gather the remaining TBDs in the IANA Considerations section would be set once the draft leaves the working group. Thanks, -- mike -- ---------------------------------- Michael R Head <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~mike +1-201-BLISTER
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
