Paul,
That seems like the most resonable approach to me. Are current requests
archived now?
John
-- original message --
Subject:Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt
From: Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 07/22/2005 11:03 pm
At 3:51 PM
--On fredag, juli 22, 2005 00:27:25 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam, I would think that the purpose of a Last Call as part of
IESG review would primarily be not to evaluate success or
failure, but to be sure that the IESG has an opportunity to
hear, from the community,
BTW, this conversation and a side conversation with John has convinced
me that IESG review should involve a call for comments phase.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:35, Sam Hartman wrote:
BTW, this conversation and a side conversation with John has convinced
me that IESG review should involve a call for comments phase.
A call for comments requires having something for the community to
comment on.
Will an internet draft will be
At 3:51 PM -0400 7/22/05, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:35, Sam Hartman wrote:
BTW, this conversation and a side conversation with John has convinced
me that IESG review should involve a call for comments phase.
A call for comments requires having something for the
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John --On Wednesday, 20 July, 2005 07:03 -0400 Sam Hartman
John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I was not intending to imply IESG review would gain a last
call. I was only speaking to IETF review.
I don't think IESG review
--On Thursday, 21 July, 2005 13:59 -0400 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John and without any prejudice from the IESG
John review.
If you mean that the IESG should treat the process fairly, I
agree. If you mean that the IESG should not express an opinion
I disagree.
I am
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 20 July, 2005 07:03 -0400 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I was not intending to imply IESG review would gain a last
call. I was only speaking to IETF review.
I don't think IESG review gaining a last call is all that
benefical. It's not
No, I was not intending to imply IESG review would gain a last call.
I was only speaking to IETF review.
I don't think IESG review gaining a last call is all that benefical.
It's not clear how you would interpret the results or what the
success/failure criteria is. I think interpreting IESG
--On Wednesday, 20 July, 2005 07:03 -0400 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I was not intending to imply IESG review would gain a last
call. I was only speaking to IETF review.
I don't think IESG review gaining a last call is all that
benefical. It's not clear how you would
running code proof that this is
what the community wants.
Brian
Scott
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 14 18:12:46 2005
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Bradner)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-iana
In which case, what you last call is not the document itself but
what the IETF intends to say about it, and do about the related
IANA action.
just so
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Scott Bradner wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
would it be reasonable to just say that we are going to
always last call IETF review documents? Personally I'd
approve of this option unless people think it is too
restrictive.
works for me
imo this update is much needed - there has been considerable confusion
about some of the processes in RFC 2434 and it would be good to
clear up the confusion
one specific area of confusion was what used to be called IETF
Consensus - renaming it to IETF Review may help but I'm not sure
I think
would it be reasonable to just say that we are going to always last
call IETF review documents? Personally I'd approve of this option
unless people think it is too restrictive.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:12:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott
Bradner's message of Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:52:38 -0400 (EDT))
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6
These are personal comments. I am also the shepherding AD for this draft.
2. Issues To Consider
...
For example, if the space
consists of text strings, it may be desirable to prevent
organizations from obtaining large sets of strings that correspond to
the best names (e.g.,
17 matches
Mail list logo
