The IESG has received a request from the Protocols for IP Multicast WG (pim)
to consider the following document: - 'IANA Considerations for Internet Group
Management Protocols'
as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 141
RFC 9542
Title: IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol
and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802
Parameters
Author: D. Eastlake 3rd
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
802 Parameters'
(draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11.txt) as Best Current Practice
This document is the product of the Internet Area Working Group.
The IESG contact persons
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Area Working Group WG
(intarea) to consider the following document: - 'IANA Considerations and IETF
Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
802 Parameters'
as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 9157
Title: Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC
Author: P. Hoffman
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date: November 2021
Mailbox
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC'
(draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-05.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Domain Name System Operations Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Robert Wilton
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'Revised IANA Considerations
for DNSSEC'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 8425
Title: IANA Considerations for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
Prefix Information Option Flags
Author: O. Troan
Status: Standards Track
Stream
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Prefix Information
Option Flags'
(draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-04.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Suresh
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document: - 'IPv6 ND PIO Flags IANA considerations'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 26
RFC 8126
Title: Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
Author: M. Cotton,
B. Leiba,
T
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs'
(draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-20.txt) as Best Current Practice
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs'
as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs'
draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-08.txt as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 191
RFC 7319
Title: IANA Considerations for Connectivity Fault
Management (CFM) Code Points
Author: D. Eastlake 3rd
Status: Best Current
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for CFM (Connectivity Fault Management) Code
Points'
(draft-eastlake-iana-cfm-considerations-02.txt) as Best Current
Practice
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for CFM (Continuity Fault Management) Codepoints'
draft-eastlake-iana-cfm-considerations-01.txt as Best Current
Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for CFM (Continuity Fault Management) Codepoints'
draft-eastlake-iana-cfm-considerations-01.txt as Best Current
Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for CFM (Continuity Fault Management) Codepoints'
draft-eastlake-iana-cfm-considerations-01.txt as Best Current
Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 141
RFC 7042
Title: IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol
and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802
Parameters
Author: D. Eastlake 3rd
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
802 Parameters'
(draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-05.txt) as Best Current Practice
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group
At 04:07 07-05-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
802 Parameters'
draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02.txt as Best Current Practice
The IESG
Hi SM,
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:24 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 04:07 07-05-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
802
received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
802 Parameters'
draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02.txt as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks
On 5/7/13 12:07 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
802 Parameters'
draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02.txt as Best Current Practice
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
802 Parameters'
draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02.txt as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 42
RFC 6895
Title: Domain Name System (DNS)
IANA Considerations
Author: D. Eastlake 3rd
Status: Best Current Practice
Stream
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations'
(draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-05.txt) as Best Current Practice
This document is the product of the DNS Extensions Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Brian Haberman.
A URL
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations'
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt as Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 164
RFC 6328
Title: IANA Considerations for Network Layer
Protocol Identifiers
Author: D. Eastlake 3rd
Status: Best Current Practice
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 42
RFC 6195
Title: Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
Considerations
Author: D. Eastlake 3rd
Status: Best Current Practice
Stream
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations'
(draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-03.txt) as a BCP
This document is the product of the DNS Extensions Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Jari Arkko.
A URL of this Internet Draft
11.01.2011 13:28, t.petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyevevniki...@gmail.com
To: Joe Touchto...@isi.edu
Cc: t.petchie...@btconnect.com;go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:24 AM
Joe,
2011/1/10, Joe Touchto...@isi.edu:
On 1/7/2011 9:16 PM,
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations'
draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5457
Title: IANA Considerations for IAX: Inter-Asterisk
eXchange Version 2
Author: E. Guy, Ed.
Status: Informational
Date: February
, 2010 at 04:53:27PM -0800, RFC Editor wrote:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5719
Title: Updated IANA Considerations for Diameter
Command Code Allocations
Author: D. Romascanu, H
Resending.
- Forwarded message from rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org -
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-d...@rfc-editor.org
Subject: RFC 5665 on IANA Considerations for Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
Network Identifiers and Universal Address Formats
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Cc: rfc-edi
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for Network Layer Protocol Identifiers '
draft-eastlake-nlpid-iana-considerations-04.txt as a BCP
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Dan
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5719
Title: Updated IANA Considerations for Diameter
Command Code Allocations
Author: D. Romascanu, H. Tschofenig
Status: Standards Track
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for NLPIDs '
draft-eastlake-nlpid-iana-considerations-03.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Updated IANA Considerations for Diameter Command Code Allocations '
draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working
Group.
The IESG contact
The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and
Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document:
- 'Updated IANA Considerations for Diameter Command Code Allocations '
draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision
Hello,
Section 7.1 of draft-ietf-enum-3761bis-04 is about DNS Security. One
sentence caught my attention:
Because of these threats, a deployed ENUM service SHOULD include
mechanisms to ameliorate these threats.
My reading of that is that a deployed ENUM service should include
On Tue, 26 May 2009, The IESG wrote:
- 'IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA
Considerations '
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-16.txt as a Proposed Standard
This is an ops-dir review. I'm only superficially familiar with ENUM,
so take the comments with a grain
The IESG has received a request from the Telephone Number Mapping WG
(enum) to consider the following document:
- 'IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA
Considerations '
draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-16.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5513
Title: IANA Considerations for Three Letter
Acronyms
Author: A. Farrel
Status: Informational
Date: 1 April 2009
Mailbox
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for RPC Net Identifiers and Universal Address
Formats '
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Network File System Version 4 Working
Group.
The IESG contact
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 42
RFC 5395
Title: Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
Considerations
Author: D. Eastlake 3rd
Status: Best Current Practice
Date
The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG
(nfsv4) to consider the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for RPC Net Identifiers and Universal Address
Formats '
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations '
draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-07.txt as a BCP
This document is the product of the DNS Extensions Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Mark Townsley and Jari Arkko.
A URL of this Internet
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5350
Title: IANA Considerations for the IPv4
and IPv6 Router Alert Options
Author: J. Manner, A. McDonald
Status: Standards Track
Date
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 141
RFC 5342
Title: IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol
Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters
Author: D. Eastlake 3rd.
Status: Best Current
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Option '
draft-manner-router-alert-iana-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person
Got it, thanks.
Jukka
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Jari Arkko wrote:
Jukka,
Both registries will use 32 values for the aggregation levels. For IPv6
RAO, value 3 is removed but value 35 is kept. Thus, IPv6 will have values
4-35 (=32 values) for the 32 levels.
OK
We can make this more clear,
Kre, authors,
First (last sentence of section 2):
It is unclear why nesting levels begin at 1 for IPv4 (described in
section 1.4.9 of [RFC3175]) and 0 for IPv6 (allocated in section 6 of
[RFC3175]).
isn't the kind of sentence that belongs in a doc like this. If the
authors are
Hi,
About cutting most of the Security Considerations section, I don't
personally have a preference, either is fine. Yet, I tend to agree with
Jari that stating the obvious isn't such a big problem, it just reminds
people that there are issues to consider. (Whether the use of an
arbitrary
Jukka,
Both registries will use 32 values for the aggregation levels. For
IPv6 RAO, value 3 is removed but value 35 is kept. Thus, IPv6 will
have values 4-35 (=32 values) for the 32 levels.
OK
We can make this more clear, yet, I already answered a question from
IANA about this a couple of
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters '
draft-eastlake-ethernet-iana-considerations-08.txt as a BCP
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact
Date:Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
| the following document:
|
| - 'IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the kind of thing we might have expected to see in a security
considerations section 15-20 years ago, when the network was a nice kind
friendly environment, where all the players would take great care not
to do
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Option '
draft-manner-router-alert-iana-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 26
RFC 5226
Title: Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs
Author: T. Narten, H. Alvestrand
Status: Best Current
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs '
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-09.txt as a BCP
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person
This draft does not address at least one issue raised in WGLC. It also
contains substantial changes made after the close of WGLC that have
received too little attention from the WG. Accordingly, I continue to
oppose publication of this document[1]. I suggest that the IESG refer it
back
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'IANA Ethernet Considerations '
draft-eastlake-ethernet-iana-considerations-05.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action
At 11:50 04/12/2007, Sam Weiler wrote:
This draft does not address at least one issue raised in WGLC. It
also contains substantial changes made after the close of WGLC that
have received too little attention from the WG. Accordingly, I
continue to oppose publication of this document[1]. I
This draft does not address at least one issue raised in WGLC. It
also contains substantial changes made after the close of WGLC that
have received too little attention from the WG. Accordingly, I
continue to oppose publication of this document[1]. I suggest that
the IESG refer it back to
-ietf-dnsext-2929bis (Domain Name System
(DNS) IANA Considerations) to BCP
This draft does not address at least one issue raised in WGLC. It
also contains substantial changes made after the close of WGLC that
have received too little attention from the WG. Accordingly, I
continue to oppose
System
(DNS)IANA Considerations) to BCP
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:48:11AM -0500,
The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 04:16:19PM -0500,
Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 103 lines which said:
How about adding the following to Section 3.1.1?
After a completed template has been formally posted to
namedroppers by IANA the Expert shall post a
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:48:11AM -0500,
The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations '
draft-ietf-dnsext
The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations '
draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs'
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-07.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 130
RFC 4940
Title: IANA Considerations for OSPF
Author: K. Kompella, B. Fenner
Status: Best Current Practice
Date: July 2007
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4937
Title: IANA Considerations for PPP over
Ethernet (PPPoE)
Author: P. Arberg, V. Mammoliti
Status: Informational
Date
All,
The ongoing thread has asked some pretty fundamental
questions about how we deal with allocations. Many
opinions have been expressed.
The general discussion is one thing, but I also wanted
to make an offer regarding specific cases where people
feel that the current IANA rules for a specific
been laying out the rules in the IANA Considerations
section for years and years about what allocation
policies are right. I think we need to respect the
wisdom of the WG to decide on a policy issue in
their protocol. We should continue to give the power
to the working groups on this issue
At 5:22 PM +0200 6/12/07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm not sure whether I agree with your proposal or not, but I think
the most concrete way forward would be a proposal for specific
wording for draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis, which
Harald left on my plate and I left for Russ
At 12:25 PM -0700 6/12/07, Thomas Narten wrote:
Some general comments on this thread. I understand the argument that
some make that we should just give out code points in all cases,
because otherwise we invite squatting.
That is one reason to give out code points liberally, but not the
only
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for OSPF '
draft-ietf-ospf-iana-03.txt as a BCP
This document is the product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Bill Fenner and Ross Callon.
A URL of this Internet-Draft
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE) '
draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-03.txt as an Informational RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Mark Townsley
The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG to
consider the following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for OSPF '
draft-ietf-ospf-iana-01.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
BCP 64
RFC 4520
Title: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE) '
draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action
The IESG has received a request from the LDAP (v3) Revision WG to consider the
following document:
- 'IANA Considerations for LDAP '
draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-05.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send any
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
1 - 100 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
