I requested this retraction because I made a fat finger mistake and included
5991 instead of 5591 in the last call (David Harrington’s keen eye caught
this). I tired to correct the mistake and get a revised LC issued, but I could
change everything in the request/write-up except the name of the document that
gets points to from the LC:
status-change-5343-5590-5991-6353-to-internet-standard-01. I thought that
might add confusion so after consultation with the secretariat I asked for them
to retract it, I put notes in the datatracker
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-5343-5590-5991-6353-to-internet-standard/history/)
for all to see, and am working on a new and corrected LC.
Apologies for any confusion.
spt
On Jan 03, 2014, at 13:12, Peter N. M. Hansteen <peter(_at_)bsdly(_dot_)net>
wrote:
This begs the question:
Do the withdrawal requests contain any publishable specifics as to why
these status changes should not go forward?
Yours,
Peter N. M. Hansteen
IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> writes:
The following Last Call has been withdrawn by request of the area director:
The IESG has received a request from multiple participants to make
the following status changes:
- RFC5343 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
(Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Context EngineID
Discovery)
- RFC5991 from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard
(Teredo Security Updates)
- RFC5590 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
(Transport Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP))
- RFC6353 from Draft Standard to Internet Standard
(Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP))
--
Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team
http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/
"Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic"
delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature