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
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:
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo