I have noticed a couple of instances in the last week where new I-Ds have been
posted and NOT notified on the I-D announce list:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i-d-announce/current/maillist.html
These two drafts are not to be found in the archive and I don't recall
receiving emails:
On Thu May 5 13:45:31 2011, Elwell, John wrote:
I have noticed a couple of instances in the last week where new
I-Ds have been posted and NOT notified on the I-D announce list:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i-d-announce/current/maillist.html
These two drafts are not to be found in the
I reported this to the Tools team a while ago; it is being worked on.
--Paul Hoffman
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I am opposed to approving this document as BCP. It is trying to solve the
wrong problem; or to put it another way, it is trying to solve a relatively
minor problem in a way that distracts attention away from more important
problems. Approval of this document will exacerbate an already bad
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 09:13:06AM -0700, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels'
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a
On balance, whilst I appreciate the aims of this document, I think
the proposals are not suitable for adoption.
1) This document radically lowers the quality of Proposed Standards.
Given that to the wider world, an RFC is an RFC, I think this
represents a mistake. Instead, in common with
On 5/5/2011 10:22 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On balance, whilst I appreciate the aims of this document, I think the proposals
are not suitable for adoption.
1) This document radically lowers the quality of Proposed Standards.
What, specifically, are the parts of the proposal that you believe
The document currently says:
Downward normative references to Informational documents continue to
be allowed using the procedure specified in RFC 3967 [2].
Downward normative references to Historic documents, Experimental
documents, and Internet-Draft documents continue to be
Ted:
The document currently says:
Downward normative references to Informational documents continue to
be allowed using the procedure specified in RFC 3967 [2].
Downward normative references to Historic documents, Experimental
documents, and Internet-Draft documents continue
As I have stated before, I do not think that this proposal will achieve
anything useful since it will not change anything related to the
underlying causes of few Proposed Standards advancing on the standards
track. I see it as window dressing and, thus, a diversion from the
technical work the
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
I strongly object to this text in Section 5:
2) At any time after two years from the approval of this document as
a BCP, the IESG may choose to reclassify any Draft Standard
document as Proposed
Speaking for myself only, I believe that this proposal does attempt to address
some
issues relating to advancement, so that it is not entirely window dressing.
For example, I believe that the changes with respect to down references
(Section 4)
and annual review (Section 3) are
I think this draft may do a little good, but mostly based on the
attention it brings to the issue.
If it is actually desired to make it easier to become a Proposed
Standard, it would be quite easy and straightforward to take real
steps that would make a real different. For example, to *prohibit*
I support publishing this document as a BCP.
While I understand that this does not solve all conceivable problems with the
world, nonetheless I see this as a small but significant step in the right
direction.
Thanks, Ross
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org
On May 5, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
I support publishing this document as a BCP.
While I understand that this does not solve all conceivable problems with the
world, nonetheless I see this as a small but significant step in the right
direction.
Hear, hear. +1.
Melinda
Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is actually desired to make it easier to become a Proposed
Standard, it would be quite easy and straightforward to take real
steps that would make a real different. For example, to *prohibit* the
requirement of multiple interoperable
Folks,
On 5/5/2011 11:33 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
As I have stated before, I do not think that this proposal will achieve
anything useful since it will not change anything related to the
underlying causes of few Proposed Standards advancing on the standards
track.
We currently have a
Total of 63 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 6 00:53:01 EDT 2011
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
9.52% |6 | 6.54% |30954 | k...@bbn.com
7.94% |5 | 5.90% |27925 |
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel Traffic over MPLS
Networks'
(draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-16.txt) as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge
Working Group.
The IESG contact
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels'
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-06.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on
20 matches
Mail list logo
