Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of
consensus do not belong on a WG page.
Where do they belong? I prefer
that they belong under the Area page, but is there an area page,
not sure why was
On 10/2/2013 9:15 AM, Scott O Bradner wrote:
1 April RFCs excepted
Ah.
I'm sitting here banging my head on a desk thinking I knew that ...
thanks, Scott!
Spencer
Hi Michael,
I agree that it should appear in related WG's field or area. I see in IETF
we have WGs documents list but not areas' documents list, so the individual
document may not be found or discovered. I think any document of IETF
should be listed in its field area or related charter, but it
Irrepressible
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:19 AM
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: ietf; tools-disc...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update
:18
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: ietf; tools-disc...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards
track, and datatracker
Hi Michael,
I agree that it should appear in related WG's field or area. I see in IETF we
have WGs documents list but not areas
1 April RFCs excepted
Scott
On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
because all IETF document are examined by IESG
No they're not. See RFC4844.
Lloyd, it *is* true that all documents in the IETF stream are reviewed
and approved by the IESG. I would take
because all IETF document are examined by IESG
No they're not. See RFC4844.
Lloyd, it *is* true that all documents in the IETF stream are reviewed
and approved by the IESG. I would take IETF documents to refer to
documents in the IETF stream.
(In fact, documents in the IRTF and Independent
While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of
consensus do not belong on a WG page.
Where do they belong? I prefer that they belong under the Area page, but is
there an area page, not sure why was that not a good idea.
But, if the document was the result of
consensus,
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
@ietf.org; tools-disc...@ietf.org
Subject: independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
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
-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Richardson
Sent: 01 October 2013 19:29
To: ietf@ietf.org; tools-disc...@ietf.org
Subject: independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker
This morning I had reason to re-read parts of RFC3777
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,
14 matches
Mail list logo
