RE: Document status

[Dave Lindert <dlindert@cisco.com>]

Haven't seen any activity here, I assumed we were waiting for Paul's 
return. What are the plans.

Dave...


At 11:05 AM 8/28/01 -0400, Dana L. Blair wrote:
> >   -----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
> >   >
> >   >
> >
> >