Re: draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-01.txt

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

if memory serves - previous versions of this were just info
documents and that seemed fine at the time

Scott

----
From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com  Mon Aug 19 13:08:32 2002
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:08:25 -0700
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Subject: Re: draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-01.txt
To: avri doria <avri@sm.luth.se>
Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <3D610FF4.1070204@sm.luth.se>
List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-nomcom-help@lists.elistx.com>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.elistx.com/ob/adm.pl>,
 <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@lists.elistx.com?body=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.elistx.com/ob/adm.pl>,
 <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@lists.elistx.com?body=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/>
List-Help: <http://lists.elistx.com/elists/admin.shtml>,
 <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@lists.elistx.com?body=help>
List-Id: <ietf-nomcom.lists.elistx.com>

if the wg is being asked to adopt this as a wg document, i would
support, but not demand, that.

if the wg is being asked to agree that it is ok for the ietf
process to run it through as an individual submission, i.e. that
the wg does not see it as an end-run on the wg, i can agree to
that.  though i note that it does specify some process which might
more appropriately be in the base noncom document.  the old opsys
design of separation of mechanism and policy comes to mind.  but i
would not make a fuss as it stands.

i am not qualified to validate the code.

randy


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>