:-)
its a label not a process (in this case)
i.e., according to 2804 the label on the rfc should not be standards track
Scott
On Jul 30, 2012, at 1:33 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
2804 does not say not to talk about such things - or that such documents
should
not be published as RFCs - 2804
Randy Bush wrote:
Scott O Bradner wrote:
2804 does not say not to talk about such things - or that such
documents should not be published as RFCs - 2804 says that the
IETF will not do standards work in this area
for those of us who are easily confused, could you differentiate between
Scott,
would you say that drafts aimed for experimental status are standards
work.
/Loa
On 2012-07-30 18:33, Scott O Bradner wrote:
2804 does not say not to talk about such things - or that such documents should
not be published as RFCs - 2804 says that the IETF will not do standards work
in
Loa,
I can't speak for Scott, but I think the problem arises if any
IANA assignments are needed, regardless of RFC status. That's
because RFC 2804 speaks of the process for creating and maintaining
IETF standards. IANA assignments are part of standards maintenance
(IMHO, of course).
Don't forget
Also note that RFC 3924 exists.
On Jul 31, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Loa,
I can't speak for Scott, but I think the problem arises if any
IANA assignments are needed, regardless of RFC status. That's
because RFC 2804 speaks of the process for creating and maintaining
IETF
Under the long-standing IETF policy defined in RFC 2804, I trust
we will not be discussing this draft, or
draft-balaji-l2vpn-lawful-intercept-thru-label-dis, in the IETF.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 30/07/2012 09:26, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the
Under the long-standing IETF policy defined in RFC 2804, I trust
we will not be discussing this draft, or
draft-balaji-l2vpn-lawful-intercept-thru-label-dis, in the IETF.
aol
2804 does not say not to talk about such things - or that such documents should
not be published as RFCs - 2804 says that the IETF will not do standards work
in this area
Scott
On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:04 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Under the long-standing IETF policy defined in RFC 2804, I
We seem to be doing a lot of talking about the draft.
On Jul 30, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
2804 does not say not to talk about such things - or that such documents
should
not be published as RFCs - 2804 says that the IETF will not do standards work
in this area
Scott
2804 does not say not to talk about such things - or that such documents
should
not be published as RFCs - 2804 says that the IETF will not do standards work
in this area
for those of us who are easily confused, could you differentiate between
working on douments and publishing them as rfcs
Yes, Scott, that is correct, sorry for my poor phrasing.
Brian
On 30/07/2012 17:33, Scott O Bradner wrote:
2804 does not say not to talk about such things - or that such documents
should
not be published as RFCs - 2804 says that the IETF will not do standards work
in this area
Scott
I agree with the comments about 2804.
I do note a lot of April 1 RFCs in the references
though, so maybe its all a joke.
S
On 07/30/2012 06:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes, Scott, that is correct, sorry for my poor phrasing.
Brian
On 30/07/2012 17:33, Scott O Bradner wrote:
2804
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 19:26 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I agree with the comments about 2804.
I do note a lot of April 1 RFCs in the references
though, so maybe its all a joke.
Gotta be!
S
On 07/30/2012 06:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes, Scott, that is correct, sorry for
13 matches
Mail list logo
