Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Henning Schulzrinne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "lconroy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Identifying mailing list for discussion(Re: Tracking reso
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
The table of mappings constitutes an on-going administrative
challenge. Also as noted, not all I-Ds are tied to working groups.
But every draft should be able to fit into one of the IETF areas;
...
Setting up a mailing list for each personal draft, with unclear '
The table of mappings constitutes an on-going administrative
challenge. Also as noted, not all I-Ds are tied to working groups.
But every draft should be able to fit into one of the IETF areas; all
areas have, as far as I know, area-wide mailing lists. At least for
TSV, the list has
lconroy wrote:
What is missing is a mapping from WG to the ML subscribe address.
I would have thought that this could be a fairly fixed table that could
be used by a reasonable hack to xml2rfc. If there is a workgroup element,
the tied ML address could be auto-generated and placed on the next l
Hi again folks,
xml2rfc does process the Blah element already.
I assume that this element will be removed/replaced during RFC-ED
processing.
Thus structured naming of drafts is not needed if the I-D author does
his/her job.
What is missing is a mapping from WG to the ML subscribe address.
I
lconroy wrote:
Hi Folks,
as a slight counter to that:
I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to include the
WG's ML inside a draft intended (eventually) to be an RFC.
The rationale was that the WG (and its ML) will disappear, whilst an
RFC is forever.
However, an unprocess
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
While not harmful, I'm not sure this is necessary if the more-or-less
standard naming convention for drafts is followed for non-WG drafts:
draft-conroy-sipping-foo-bar
indicates that the author Conroy believes the sipping WG to be the
appropriate place for discussio
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
While not harmful, I'm not sure this is necessary if the more-or-less
standard naming convention for drafts is followed for non-WG drafts:
draft-conroy-sipping-foo-bar
indicates that the author Conroy believes the sipping WG to be the
appropriate place for discuss
While not harmful, I'm not sure this is necessary if the more-or-less
standard naming convention for drafts is followed for non-WG drafts:
draft-conroy-sipping-foo-bar
indicates that the author Conroy believes the sipping WG to be the
appropriate place for discussion, just like
draft-sippi
Hi Folks,
as a slight counter to that:
I have had feedback in the past from WGs that it is unwise to include
the
WG's ML inside a draft intended (eventually) to be an RFC.
The rationale was that the WG (and its ML) will disappear, whilst an
RFC is forever.
However, an unprocessed/not updat
On Jan 15, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
I have argued for years that an I-D that doesn't say in its "status
of this memo" section which mailing list it is to be discussed on
is incomplete, but I don't seem to have achieved much success for
that.
100% agree. On many of my dr
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:26:33 -0500
John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps we should make it a requirement that any document that
is Last Called must be associated with a mailing list, perhaps
one whose duration is limited to the Last Call period and any
12 matches
Mail list logo
