works for me (assuming that you include non-IETF documents when you
say "IETF review documents")
Scott
----
From hartmans(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu Thu Jul 14 18:12:46 2005
X-Original-To: sob(_at_)newdev(_dot_)harvard(_dot_)edu
Delivered-To: sob(_at_)newdev(_dot_)harvard(_dot_)edu
To: sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu (Scott Bradner)
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt
References:
<20050714165238(_dot_)9899741F6D8(_at_)newdev(_dot_)harvard(_dot_)edu>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:12:40 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<20050714165238(_dot_)9899741F6D8(_at_)newdev(_dot_)harvard(_dot_)edu> (Scott
Bradner's message of "Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:52:38 -0400 (EDT)")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
would it be reasonable to just say that we are going to always last
call IETF review documents? Personally I'd approve of this option
unless people think it is too restrictive.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf