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

Re: [idn] Document Status?

To: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Subject: Re: [idn] Document Status?
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:02:03 +0200
Cc: James Seng <jseng@pobox.org.sg>, idn@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <2309179.1030769070@localhost>
References: <5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com><"Yourmessage withID"<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FDA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com><5.1.1.2.2.20020830092156.042c6600@jay.songbird.com><5.1.1.2.2.20020830110236.0260f0b0@jay.songbird.com><5.1.1.2.2.20020830211914.025be4c8@jay.songbird.com><27978011.1030779558@localhost> <2309179.1030769070@localhost>

--On 2002-08-31 04.44 -0400 John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> wrote:

> I agree with you that this is a reasonable way to proceed.
> However, I trust that the results of the rewriting process will
> be circulated back to the WG and last-called again, and possibly
> run back through an additional IETF Last Call.

I see this being of the decisions an AD _always_ have to make after getting
comments, and a new document, back after issues have been rised.

I.e. not my call.

   paf

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [idn] Document Status?
  - From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>

References:
- Re: [idn] Document Status?
  - From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
- [idn] Document Status?
  - From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
- Re: [idn] Document Status?
  - From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
- Re: [idn] Document Status?
  - From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
- Re: [idn] Document Status?
  - From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
- Re: [idn] Document Status?
  - From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [idn] Document Status?
Next by Date: Re: [idn] Document Status?
Previous by thread: Re: [idn] Document Status?
Next by thread: Re: [idn] Document Status?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread