[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: WG document status

To: loa.andersson@utfors.se, mlazer@att.com, Sasha@AXERRA.com
Subject: RE: WG document status
From: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:23:20 -0500 (EST)
Cc: afferton@att.com, bwijnen@lucent.com, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, dbrungard@att.com, gash@att.com, yakov@juniper.net

> Does not RFC 2026 overrule the previous requirements, 

the pp in 2026 you note gives the IESG (backing up a AD for example)
flexibility to support the type of thing that the routing AD did

from 2026 sec 4.1.1
   The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
   prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
   materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
   behavior that may have significant operational impact on the 
   Internet.

Scott

Prev by Date: Re: WG document status
Next by Date: Re: WG document status
Previous by thread: Re: WG document status
Next by thread: Re: WG document status
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread