Scott Bradner wrote:
works for me (assuming that you include non-IETF documents when you
say "IETF review documents")
In which case, what you last call is not the document itself but
what the IETF intends to say about it, and do about the related
IANA action.
That being so, I think we now have running code proof that this is
what the community wants.
Brian
Scott
----
From hartmans@xxxxxxx Thu Jul 14 18:12:46 2005
X-Original-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxx (Scott Bradner)
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt
References: <20050714165238.9899741F6D8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:12:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20050714165238.9899741F6D8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf