RE: Document status

["Dana L. Blair" <dblair@cisco.com>]

>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: owner-more@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-more@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf
>   Of kempf
>   Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 7:54 PM
>   To: more@psg.com; jgw@cisco.com
>   Subject: Re: Document status
>
>
>   John,
>
>   Paul is still on vacation. I assume he will work on generating a new
>   version when he gets back.

Thanks for pointing this out.  I really want to keep this
an operator lead activity, and Paul is the key person for
that.  Hopefully, when he gets back from vacation he will
start an email dialogue and make some suggestions on how to
proceed.

I do believe the goal of an informational rfc is a good one,
and not too difficult to achieve since this acitivity seems
to have support from the Area Directors.  No one objected
to this goal at the IETF meeting, so we should assume at
least tacit approval.

thanks,
Dana

>
>   		jak
>
>   >Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:26:29 -0400
>   >From: "John G. Waclawsky" <jgw@cisco.com>
>   >X-Accept-Language: en
>   >To: more@psg.com
>   >Subject: Document status
>   >
>   >Does anyone know what the current document status is (the
>   draft with Paul
>   >Reynolds name on it)? Is there another (later) version of this document
>   >available?  I would also like to suggest that since there are so many
>   >requirements in the draft, that we number the requirements for
>   discussion and
>   >begin the process of scrubbing the draft (add, delete,
>   condense, clarify,
>   >identify what area in the IETF is working on each item, if
>   any... etc) and
>   >re-organizing it.       Regards  John
>   >
>   >
>
>