In honor of our retiring chair and his talent with acronyms, the
working draft has been changed to use "Directives for Oversight
and Administration". The editorial problems Bruce identified
have been fixed. :-)
--On Thursday, 03 March, 2005 19:18 -0500 Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> wrote:
John Klensin wrote (on the IETF discussion list):
This is, IMO, part of the "standing procedural document"
There's your TLA: SPD (which might or might not be popular
in Germany...).
Speaking of TLAs, the WG might want to reconsider ISD which
looks quite a bit like ISO, especially in some fonts at
small sizes...
There is a placeholder proposal in front of NEWTRK,
paralleling the "ISD" proposal, that would actually create a
document series for these things, separate from BCPs and
probably from RFCs. It isn't obviously a NEWTRK work item,
but was prepared to export a loose end from the ISD draft.
Unless the idea crashes and burns in informal discussions
next week, I expect that the NEWTRK Chair and the relevant AD
will, sometime thereafter, make a decision about whether and
how it should be developed and carried forward.
I'd encourage you (and others concerned about this) to have a
look at the document and comment as appropriate to the NEWTRK
list. The current draft is draft-ietf-newtrk-sd-00.txt.
The draft looks OK in principle; a few nits:
In section 1, 2nd paragraph, "have traditionally be" should
be "traditionally have been".
The answer to the note in section 2 is above. Or we could
revive Harald's suggestions for "Recommended Internet
Practices" or "Directives for Oversight and Administration".
I suspect you want a different TLA in the heading of section 4.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf