John Levine wrote:
John, I think the first go-round went to the IETF as
draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-04 (file was actually 01). I fixed the
document so that this one says 02. Is this going to be a problem?
Should I call this 05 before distributing to IETF?
The prior drafts never made it into the IETF database, so as far as
they are concerned, the prior draft was -01 and this is -02.
I'm concerned that the prior draft had -04 within the document. If I
publish this new one with the -02 it should have, it'll look like the
first one is the latest.
[I should have caught this, but I'm a complete newb with the tools and
the process.]
No wait, the IETF copy _does_ say -01. But the copy you returned to me
with your last mods had -04 inside it. _They_ must have zapped it
before publication, or you zapped it after the copy you sent back.
Never mind. We're good - this will be -02 inside and out.
Will read and comment when I have a chance, but I gotta get a book in.
Thx.
Question: it seems like a number of DNSBL/ex-DNSBL people may be willing
to publicly endorse this document if they like the final result. It'd
be nice to put that in explicitly in the Acknowledgements in one way or
another (if they're willing to go that far). Is that IETF-ishly acceptable?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg