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,
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
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
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
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
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
--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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
