Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
On 9/5/13 2:45 PM, Scott O Bradner wrote: looks good to me except that maybe using the IETF Announce list rather than IESG minutes as the publication of record The only reason I went with the IESG minutes is because they do state the pending actions too, as well as the completed ones, which the IETF Announce list does not. For instance, the IESG minutes say things like: The document remains under discussion by the IESG in order to resolve points raised by... The document was approved by the IESG pending an RFC Editor Note to be prepared by... The document was deferred to the next teleconference by... The minutes also of course reflect all of the approvals. So they do seem to more completely replace what that paragraph as talking about. And we have archives of IESG minutes back to 1991; we've only got IETF Announce back to 2004. I'm not personally committed to going one way or the other. The minutes just seemed to me the more complete record. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
I also agree that the minutes are the most complete/official record we have. Jari On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:40 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: I tend to agree with Pete - the minutes are more like an official record, as well. BTW, the IESG Charter (RFC 3710) says: The IESG publishes a record of decisions from its meetings on the Internet,... In any case, apart from this detail, I think the draft is good to go. Brian On 06/09/2013 10:20, Pete Resnick wrote: On 9/5/13 2:45 PM, Scott O Bradner wrote: looks good to me except that maybe using the IETF Announce list rather than IESG minutes as the publication of record The only reason I went with the IESG minutes is because they do state the pending actions too, as well as the completed ones, which the IETF Announce list does not. For instance, the IESG minutes say things like: The document remains under discussion by the IESG in order to resolve points raised by... The document was approved by the IESG pending an RFC Editor Note to be prepared by... The document was deferred to the next teleconference by... The minutes also of course reflect all of the approvals. So they do seem to more completely replace what that paragraph as talking about. And we have archives of IESG minutes back to 1991; we've only got IETF Announce back to 2004. I'm not personally committed to going one way or the other. The minutes just seemed to me the more complete record. pr
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
I tend to agree with Pete - the minutes are more like an official record, as well. BTW, the IESG Charter (RFC 3710) says: The IESG publishes a record of decisions from its meetings on the Internet,... In any case, apart from this detail, I think the draft is good to go. Brian On 06/09/2013 10:20, Pete Resnick wrote: On 9/5/13 2:45 PM, Scott O Bradner wrote: looks good to me except that maybe using the IETF Announce list rather than IESG minutes as the publication of record The only reason I went with the IESG minutes is because they do state the pending actions too, as well as the completed ones, which the IETF Announce list does not. For instance, the IESG minutes say things like: The document remains under discussion by the IESG in order to resolve points raised by... The document was approved by the IESG pending an RFC Editor Note to be prepared by... The document was deferred to the next teleconference by... The minutes also of course reflect all of the approvals. So they do seem to more completely replace what that paragraph as talking about. And we have archives of IESG minutes back to 1991; we've only got IETF Announce back to 2004. I'm not personally committed to going one way or the other. The minutes just seemed to me the more complete record. pr
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
Having seen no further comments, Jari has asked me to post -01 with the changes. Done. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
looks good to me except that maybe using the IETF Announce list rather than IESG minutes as the publication of record Scott On Sep 5, 2013, at 1:10 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: Having seen no further comments, Jari has asked me to post -01 with the changes. Done. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
At 14:45 05-09-2013, Scott O Bradner wrote: looks good to me except that maybe using the IETF Announce list rather than IESG minutes as the publication of record What draft-resnick-retire-std1-01 says is that the publication of record has been the IESG minutes. I read what Scott Bradner wrote as meaning that the IETF will use the IETF Announce list as the publication of record. Suggested text: Finally, RFC 2026 [RFC2026] section 6.1.3 also calls for the publication of an official summary of standards actions completed and pending in the Internet Society's newsletter. This has also not been done in recent years. Therefore, that paragraph is also effectively removed from section 6.1.3. The publication of record for standards action is the IETF Announce list. The idea here is to announce the standards action that has been taken. By the way, publication of record is different from formal record. Regards, -sm
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
--On Thursday, September 05, 2013 15:20 -0700 Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: IESG minutes as the publication of record The only reason I went with the IESG minutes is because they do state the pending actions too, as well as the completed ones, which the IETF Announce list does not. For instance, the IESG minutes say things like: ... The minutes also of course reflect all of the approvals. So they do seem to more completely replace what that paragraph as talking about. And we have archives of IESG minutes back to 1991; we've only got IETF Announce back to 2004. I'm not personally committed to going one way or the other. The minutes just seemed to me the more complete record. Pete, Scott, The purpose of the Official Protocol Status list was, at least IMO, much more to provide a status snapshot and index than to announce what had been done. I think the key question today is not where is it announced? but how do I find it?. In that regard, the minutes are a little worse than the announcement list today, not because the announcement list contains as much information, but because the S/N ratio is worse. With the understanding that the Official Protocol Standards list has not been issued/updated in _many_ years, wouldn't it make sense to include a serious plan about information locations, navigation, and access in this? For example, if we are going to rely on IETF minutes, shouldn't the Datatracker be able to thread references to particular specifications through it? The tracker entries that it can access appear to be only a tiny fraction of the information to which Pete's note refers. john
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
the quoted text came from RFC 1602 and is descriptive not proscriptive removing a description of a process that is no longer followed makes sense to me but might not warrant a RFC to do but the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3 says: The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an Internet Official Protocol Standards RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet protocol and service specifications. is a process requirement - this requirement is the specific text that should be removed and is worth spinning a RFC to do and while you are at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd paragraph in the same section An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This shall constitute the publication of record for Internet standards actions. should also be removed since that is not being done either and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not actually exist Scott Scott O Bradner Senior Technology Consultant Harvard University Information Technology Innovation Architecture (P) +1 (617) 495 3864 1033 Mass Ave, room 462 Cambridge, MA 02138 On Sep 3, 2013, at 10:16 AM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document' draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt as Best Current Practice The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-10-01. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document updates RFC 2026 to no longer use STD 1 as a summary of Internet Official Protocol Standards. It obsoletes RFC 5000 and requests the IESG to move RFC 5000 (and therefore STD 1) to Historic status. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-retire-std1/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-retire-std1/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote: the quoted text came from RFC 1602 and is descriptive not proscriptive removing a description of a process that is no longer followed makes sense to me but might not warrant a RFC to do but the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3 says: The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an Internet Official Protocol Standards RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet protocol and service specifications. is a process requirement - this requirement is the specific text that should be removed and is worth spinning a RFC to do Good catch. I'll switch the citation and the quote to the bit from 6.1.3, but I'll also note the removal of the piece in 2.1. I also found a mention in the last paragraph of 3.3. I'll make sure to note in the document that we're removing that too. and while you are at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd paragraph in the same section An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This shall constitute the publication of record for Internet standards actions. should also be removed since that is not being done either and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not actually exist I agree it should probably be removed. Should we replace it anything? pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
On 04/09/2013 04:16, Pete Resnick wrote: On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote: the quoted text came from RFC 1602 and is descriptive not proscriptive removing a description of a process that is no longer followed makes sense to me but might not warrant a RFC to do but the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3 says: The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an Internet Official Protocol Standards RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet protocol and service specifications. is a process requirement - this requirement is the specific text that should be removed and is worth spinning a RFC to do Good catch. I'll switch the citation and the quote to the bit from 6.1.3, but I'll also note the removal of the piece in 2.1. I also found a mention in the last paragraph of 3.3. I'll make sure to note in the document that we're removing that too. and while you are at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd paragraph in the same section An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This shall constitute the publication of record for Internet standards actions. should also be removed since that is not being done either and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not actually exist I agree it should probably be removed. Should we replace it anything? Maybe an informational statement that the current standards status is always at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html ? (Or whatever stable URL the RFC Editor prefers to cite.) Brian
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
On 9/3/2013 3:49 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote: in line On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd paragraph in the same section An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This shall constitute the publication of record for Internet standards actions. should also be removed since that is not being done either and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not actually exist I agree it should probably be removed. Should we replace it anything? Maybe an informational statement that the current standards status is always at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html ? (Or whatever stable URL the RFC Editor prefers to cite.) I've fixed the reference to [STDS-TRK] so that it shows the URL. I'm not sure we need to make further reference to it. Thinking about this more, we're starting to drift afield of the purpose of this document if we start removing that paragraph. Removing that paragraph requires a different explanation than the rest. Speaking for myself only, I'm leaning against dealing with it. Anyone want to speak strongly for or against? I agree that the explanation is different, but I go back to Scott's it is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not actually exist. Not that Pete and I get paid by the document on telechat agendas, but is this another candidate for a short draft? Spencer
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
On 9/3/13 1:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 04/09/2013 04:16, Pete Resnick wrote: On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote: ...the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3... Good catch. I'll switch the citation and the quote to the bit from 6.1.3, but I'll also note the removal of the piece in 2.1. I also found a mention in the last paragraph of 3.3. I'll make sure to note in the document that we're removing that too. Here's what I've got as a replacement for section 1: RFC 2026 [RFC2026] and its predecessors call for the publication of an RFC describing the status of IETF protocols: The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an Internet Official Protocol Standards RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet protocol and service specifications. The Internet Official Protocol Standards document, now as RFC 5000 [RFC5000], has always been listed in the Internet Standard series as STD 1. However, the document has not been kept up to date in recent years, and it has fallen out of use in favor of the online list produced by the RFC Editor [STDS-TRK]. The IETF no longer sees the need for the document to be maintained. Therefore, this document updates RFC 2026 [RFC2026], effectively removing the above mentioned paragraph from section 6.1.3, along with the paragraph from section 2.1 that states: The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is summarized periodically in an RFC entitled Internet Official Protocol Standards [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service specification (see section 3). and the paragraph from section 3.3 that states: The Official Protocol Standards RFC (STD1) lists a general requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this section. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found in appropriate ASs. Additionally, this document obsoletes RFC 5000 [RFC5000], the current incarnation of that document, and requests that the IESG move that document (and therefore STD 1) to Historic status. Makes me go over 2 pages, but such is life. and while you are at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd paragraph in the same section An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This shall constitute the publication of record for Internet standards actions. should also be removed since that is not being done either and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not actually exist I agree it should probably be removed. Should we replace it anything? Maybe an informational statement that the current standards status is always at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html ? (Or whatever stable URL the RFC Editor prefers to cite.) I've fixed the reference to [STDS-TRK] so that it shows the URL. I'm not sure we need to make further reference to it. Thinking about this more, we're starting to drift afield of the purpose of this document if we start removing that paragraph. Removing that paragraph requires a different explanation than the rest. Speaking for myself only, I'm leaning against dealing with it. Anyone want to speak strongly for or against? pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
in line On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: On 9/3/13 1:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 04/09/2013 04:16, Pete Resnick wrote: On 9/3/13 9:32 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote: ...the 3rd paragraph in section 6.1.3... Good catch. I'll switch the citation and the quote to the bit from 6.1.3, but I'll also note the removal of the piece in 2.1. I also found a mention in the last paragraph of 3.3. I'll make sure to note in the document that we're removing that too. Here's what I've got as a replacement for section 1: RFC 2026 [RFC2026] and its predecessors call for the publication of an RFC describing the status of IETF protocols: The RFC Editor shall publish periodically an Internet Official Protocol Standards RFC [1], summarizing the status of all Internet protocol and service specifications. The Internet Official Protocol Standards document, now as RFC 5000 [RFC5000], has always been listed in the Internet Standard series as STD 1. However, the document has not been kept up to date in recent years, and it has fallen out of use in favor of the online list produced by the RFC Editor [STDS-TRK]. The IETF no longer sees the need for the document to be maintained. Therefore, this document updates RFC 2026 [RFC2026], effectively removing the above mentioned paragraph from section 6.1.3, along with the paragraph from section 2.1 that states: The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is summarized periodically in an RFC entitled Internet Official Protocol Standards [1]. This RFC shows the level of maturity and other helpful information for each Internet protocol or service specification (see section 3). and the paragraph from section 3.3 that states: The Official Protocol Standards RFC (STD1) lists a general requirement level for each TS, using the nomenclature defined in this section. This RFC is updated periodically. In many cases, more detailed descriptions of the requirement levels of particular protocols and of individual features of the protocols will be found in appropriate ASs. Additionally, this document obsoletes RFC 5000 [RFC5000], the current incarnation of that document, and requests that the IESG move that document (and therefore STD 1) to Historic status. Makes me go over 2 pages, but such is life. life is hard sometimes :-) the above text works for me and while you are at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd paragraph in the same section An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This shall constitute the publication of record for Internet standards actions. should also be removed since that is not being done either and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not actually exist I agree it should probably be removed. Should we replace it anything? Maybe an informational statement that the current standards status is always at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html ? (Or whatever stable URL the RFC Editor prefers to cite.) I've fixed the reference to [STDS-TRK] so that it shows the URL. I'm not sure we need to make further reference to it. Thinking about this more, we're starting to drift afield of the purpose of this document if we start removing that paragraph. Removing that paragraph requires a different explanation than the rest. Speaking for myself only, I'm leaning against dealing with it. Anyone want to speak strongly for or against? no strong feeling either way Scott pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
Comment at the end... On 04/09/2013 08:58, Spencer Dawkins wrote: On 9/3/2013 3:49 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote: in line On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: at it - maybe you should remove the 2nd paragraph in the same section An official summary of standards actions completed and pending shall appear in each issue of the Internet Society's newsletter. This shall constitute the publication of record for Internet standards actions. should also be removed since that is not being done either and it is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not actually exist I agree it should probably be removed. Should we replace it anything? Maybe an informational statement that the current standards status is always at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html ? (Or whatever stable URL the RFC Editor prefers to cite.) I've fixed the reference to [STDS-TRK] so that it shows the URL. I'm not sure we need to make further reference to it. Thinking about this more, we're starting to drift afield of the purpose of this document if we start removing that paragraph. Removing that paragraph requires a different explanation than the rest. Speaking for myself only, I'm leaning against dealing with it. Anyone want to speak strongly for or against? I agree that the explanation is different, but I go back to Scott's it is not good to say we have a publication of record that does not actually exist. Not that Pete and I get paid by the document on telechat agendas, but is this another candidate for a short draft? rant class=shortSo that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs that update RFC 2026, some of which have been updated themselves./rant Quite seriously - I appreciate Pete's reluctance to overload the draft, but it is a related topic. I'd be inclined to include it. Brian
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
On 9/3/13 3:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: rant class=shortSo that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs that update RFC 2026, some of which have been updated themselves./rant Quite seriously - I appreciate Pete's reluctance to overload the draft, but it is a related topic. I'd be inclined to include it. OK, does this do anything for anyone? Finally, RFC 2026 [RFC2026] section 6.1.3 also calls for the publication of an official summary of standards actions completed and pending in the Internet Society's newsletter. This has also not been done in recent years, and the publication of record for standards actions has for some time been the minutes of the IESG. [IESG-MINUTES] Therefore, that paragraph is also effectively removed from section 6.1.3. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
On 9/3/2013 6:02 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: On 9/3/13 3:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: rant class=shortSo that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs that update RFC 2026, some of which have been updated themselves./rant Quite seriously - I appreciate Pete's reluctance to overload the draft, but it is a related topic. I'd be inclined to include it. OK, does this do anything for anyone? Finally, RFC 2026 [RFC2026] section 6.1.3 also calls for the publication of an official summary of standards actions completed and pending in the Internet Society's newsletter. This has also not been done in recent years, and the publication of record for standards actions has for some time been the minutes of the IESG. [IESG-MINUTES] Therefore, that paragraph is also effectively removed from section 6.1.3. That would work for me. Spencer
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
On 04/09/2013 11:20, Spencer Dawkins wrote: On 9/3/2013 6:02 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: On 9/3/13 3:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: rant class=shortSo that the reader of RFC 2026 will need to read yet another document to get the full picture? There are currently 8 RFCs that update RFC 2026, some of which have been updated themselves./rant Quite seriously - I appreciate Pete's reluctance to overload the draft, but it is a related topic. I'd be inclined to include it. OK, does this do anything for anyone? Finally, RFC 2026 [RFC2026] section 6.1.3 also calls for the publication of an official summary of standards actions completed and pending in the Internet Society's newsletter. This has also not been done in recent years, and the publication of record for standards actions has for some time been the minutes of the IESG. [IESG-MINUTES] Therefore, that paragraph is also effectively removed from section 6.1.3. That would work for me. Spencer Me too. Brian
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
Hi Pete, At 16:02 03-09-2013, Pete Resnick wrote: OK, does this do anything for anyone? Finally, RFC 2026 [RFC2026] section 6.1.3 also calls for the publication of an official summary of standards actions completed and pending in the Internet Society's newsletter. This has also not been done in recent years, and the publication of record for standards actions has for some time been the minutes of the IESG. [IESG-MINUTES] Therefore, that paragraph is also effectively removed from section 6.1.3. I suggest using IETF Announce mailing list as the publication of record. The mailing list probably has a wider readership and anyone can subscribe to it. The usage of the mailing list is also consistent with other parts of RFC 2026. Regards, -sm
Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-retire-std1-00.txt (Retirement of the Internet Official Protocol Standards Summary Document) to Best Current Practice
On 9/3/13 4:28 PM, SM wrote: Hi Pete, At 16:02 03-09-2013, Pete Resnick wrote: OK, does this do anything for anyone? Finally, RFC 2026 [RFC2026] section 6.1.3 also calls for the publication of an official summary of standards actions completed and pending in the Internet Society's newsletter. This has also not been done in recent years, and the publication of record for standards actions has for some time been the minutes of the IESG. [IESG-MINUTES] Therefore, that paragraph is also effectively removed from section 6.1.3. I suggest using IETF Announce mailing list as the publication of record. The mailing list probably has a wider readership and anyone can subscribe to it. The usage of the mailing list is also consistent with other parts of RFC 2026. The IETF Announce list does not say anything about pending standards actions. The IESG minutes do. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
