Paul,
That seems like the most resonable approach to me. Are current requests
archived now?
John
-- original message --
Subject: Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt
From: Paul Hoffman <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org>
Date: 07/22/2005 11:03 pm
At 3:51 PM -0400 7/22/05, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 07:35, Sam Hartman wrote:
BTW, this conversation and a side conversation with John has convinced
me that IESG review should involve a call for comments phase.
A call for comments requires having something for the community to
comment on.
Will an internet draft will be required from folks seeking IESG review
of a proposed assignment, or will we invent yet another mechanism for
circulating a description of the proposal to the community?
It would make sense for the IESG to send to the community what was
sent to them; that way, we can judge what they are judging. If it was
a pointer to an Internet Draft, great; a pointer to some other
document(s) works just as well.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
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