ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: New ICAP draft

2001-06-19 18:42:35

On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Yang, Lily L wrote:


Alberto --

Just one suggestion:

[snip]

When you plan to take the draft to the standard status, then it might not be
appropriate to refer to non-standard-status work (I vaguely remember
something like that).


Just to clarify the use of the word "standard" in this context: We are
NOT planning to submit the current draft v1.0 as a standard or
proposed standard.  After we receive some comments the idea is to make
an individual submission as an RFC Informational.  

Nothing precludes a WG to take v1.0, modify it, and then submit a
new v2.0 as a proposed standard submission of the WG.  

Last time somebody used the word "standard" in this context it started
a long email thread requesting for clarifications.

Best regards,
-Alberto.

Lily


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-openproxy(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-openproxy(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of 
Alberto Cerpa
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 4:48 PM
To: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: New ICAP draft



Hi all,

Here is the draft we promised to deliver by the end of this week.  The
draft can be found at:
http://www.circlemud.org/~jelson/icap-1.72.txt

We think it is pretty well polish and a cleaner version. We have tried
to incorporate in it all the comments we received from the 
list the last
couple of weeks. We hope to receive further comments form the group in
the following weeks.  Let us reemphasize that this is just a 
draft, and
we will probably update it as we receive feedback from the group.

The plan is to submit another draft to the list after we receive some
comments, then generate a new updated draft and submit it as an I-D.
After a couple of weeks for yet another round of comments and
suggestions we would like to finally submit it as an RFC 
Informational.

Comments are very welcome.

Regards,
Jer & Al.









<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>