On 2007-01-13 12:32, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hey, I had promised to keep out of this having already used my quota of
emails for the months, but then Fred said...
That said, I _do_ wish the tracker would maintain history of DISCUSS
and COMMENT comments, instead of only showing the latest ballot
On 2007-01-12 09:54, Pekka Savola wrote:
Well, it seems rather common that IETF LC comments (especially if not
copied to ietf@ietf.org list) are not responded.
Firstly, this is the reason we recently made some minor changes
in the text of the IETF Last Call messages, and why you will see a
Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi -
From: Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Joel M. Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-legg-xed-asd (Abstract Syntax Notation
X(ASN.X)) to
Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And as you very well know, the IPR working group is fixing the
problem. I think a pointer to the archives there would have sufficed
(or at least a mention of the discussion and status).
The mailing list archives doesn't contain a clear description
Just a minor followup here...
From a Brian-o-gram:
IETF LC comments are supposed to be sent to the IETF list, which has a
public archive (or exceptionally to the iesg).
Maybe we should be clearer on what the expectation for processing IETF LC
comments is. Unless we do, it is not obvious
On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 09:31:29AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-01-12 09:54, Pekka Savola wrote:
That depends on the AD's judgement whether the comments are serious
enough to definitely require a new I-D. Quite often the AD will prefer
to get any DISCUSSes on the table at the
I haven't seen an announcement of the new-style Last Call text, only its
use on specific recent last calls (I saw it on 12/22 Last Calls, so it's
pretty recent). If you have also seen so many Last Call e-mails that you
no longer actually read them, you might not have noticed the new text
