[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-radext-fixes
Thant's fine, I inserted a note in the tracker on this
respect. I guess that Lars will hold his DISCUSS anyway until a revised version
of the I-D is available.
I would agree that a revised ID is needed. However, I'd
like to leave some time for the RADEXT WG to review the changes
before bringing the new document to the IESG for approval. This
probably can't happen before Thursday.
> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007
> From: email@example.com
> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org;
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Re: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-radext-fixes
> Romascanu, Dan
> > The quantity and the quality of the edits seem to
indicate that a
> > Revised ID is Needed. Do the editors believe that
they can submit this
> > ID before the submission cut-off next week,
or - dare I? - before this
> > Thursday telechat?
If there's we can get acceptable terminology for the jitter/randomness
issue, a revised draft can be submitted.
> The issue of
monotonically increasing Id's is a protocol change, and
> it would
appear to be out of the scope of the charter.
> to unsubscribe send a message to
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single
line as the message text body.