independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker

2013-10-01 Thread Michael Richardson
This morning I had reason to re-read parts of RFC3777, and anything that updated it. I find the datatracker WG interface to really be useful, and so I visited http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ first. I guess I could have instead gone to: http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3777 but

RE: independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker

2013-10-01 Thread Adrian Farrel
Not to detract from your point, Michael, but http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=nomcomrfcs=onsort= is pretty good. Adrian -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson Sent: 01 October 2013 19:29 To:

Re: independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker

2013-10-01 Thread Brian E Carpenter
The place to go is definitely not the page for a closed WG. How can that be expected to track things that happened after the WG closed? Since it's a BCP, you get the lot at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp10 or http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp10.txt. In this particular case, you can also find

Re: independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker

2013-10-01 Thread Yoav Nir
On Oct 1, 2013, at 9:29 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote: This morning I had reason to re-read parts of RFC3777, and anything that updated it. I find the datatracker WG interface to really be useful, and so I visited http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ first. I guess

Re: independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker

2013-10-01 Thread Michael Richardson
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: The place to go is definitely not the page for a closed WG. How can that be expected to track things that happened after the WG closed? Since it's a BCP, you get the lot at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp10 or

Re: independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker

2013-10-01 Thread Michael Richardson
I note that neither: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nomcom/ nor: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=nomcomrfcs=onsort= told me that 3777 was also BCP10 now. (Even if 3777 wasn't BCP10 anymore, I think it would be useful for the datatracker to tell me that it was part of BCP10,

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-06

2013-10-01 Thread Stephen Kent
David, Since this doc logically precedes the BGPsec design, I still think it's appropriate to use PATHSEC here. But, we can add a sentence to connect the terms. I propose this modified text for the introduction: *This document describes the security context in which PATHSEC is intended to

RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-06

2013-10-01 Thread Black, David
Steve, I think the modified introduction text suffices to connect the PATHSEC and BGPsec terms, but I don't think that referring to the SIDR WG charter for the PATHSEC goals is reasonable - an RFC is an archive document, whereas a WG charter is not. The explanation of calls for in the cache

Attracting people from emerging regions into the IETF

2013-10-01 Thread S Moonesamy
Hello, Here is a draft which attempts to address the challenge of attracting people from emerging regions who can contribute to IETF work into the IETF. Please note that I do not have a strong opinion about the suggestions. Regards, S. Moonesamy

Protocol Action: 'Revised Definition of The GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-03.txt)

2013-10-01 Thread The IESG
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Revised Definition of The GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields' (draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-03.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group. The IESG contact persons