Hi Folks, True to their word, the RFC Editiors have placed our IDs in AUTH48 state. Their RFC numbers are listed below. They reviwed this order change with David and I yesterday.
Have a good weekend, Chris -----Original Message----- From: RFC Editor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 02:52 PM Pacific Standard Time To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); Anton Okmyanskiy (aokmians); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; RFC Editor Subject: draft-ietf-syslog* Greetings Authors, We had previously sent you a suggested number scheme for the draft-ietf-syslog documents, however, they have been reordered slightly to account for the email below from Sam Hartman. The order is now as follows: RFC 5424 draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-23.txt RFC 5425 draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-14.txt RFC 5426 draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-12.txt RFC 5427 draft-ietf-syslog-tc-mib-08.txt RFC 5428 draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-14.txt Thanks! Sandy On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 05:34:33PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > Hi. You received two syslog documents today and these documents are > blocked on a missing normative reference. > These three documents > > * draft-ietf-syslog-protocol > * draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls > * draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp > > form a set. They should be assigned sequential RFC numbers in that > order. I.E. protocol should be rfc n; tls n+1 and UDP n+2. > > I'll try to send this note again when the reference hold clears. I'd > appreciate it if the syslog chairs would remind us all if I fail to do > that. > > > Thanks, > > --Sam
_______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
