On 12/2/14 11:20 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
When you suggest saying more, are you suggesting saying more in the
document?
I mostly meant the writeup - I expect there will be IESG folks with the same
questions I had.
I can do that, sure.
This document updates:
...
c) IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP Version 2.0 Second Edition [PWG5100.12], by
extending section 4 'IPP Standards' and section 10 'Security
Considerations'.
This RFC-to-be is updating an IEEE-ISTO PWG document, and that seems
exceptional enough to warrant mention about how the organizations
are coordinating that update.
I'd think that's for PWG to address on their side, no? If they accept
that they can have an IETF RFC formally updating one of their
documents, that's their process, not ours, no?
This is to be an IETF document. If the PWG wants to say in one of their
documents that PWG5100.12 is updated by this IETF document, that's their
business. But *we* can't say in *our* document that we're updating their
document. If you need a note, it could say:
Note: IEEE-ISTO PWG has indicated that they intend to use this
document as an update to their IPP Version 2.0 Second Edition
[PWG5100.12], by extending section 4 'IPP Standards' and section
10 'Security Considerations'.
But (c) should go.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478