RE: Begin WG Last Call: NETCONF Issue List

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 07:21 AM 2/6/2004, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>Hi
>
>Sorry, I'm a bit thick today. So then can we expect a -02 out by the cut-off
>date which addresses some of the problems and a -03 to follow after the
>cut-off, or are we thinking of just a -02 after the last call?

I'm leaving to the editor's judgement.  If there are enough
edits related to closed issues to make a document update
worthwhile, then go ahead.  It's also okay if none of the
drafts get updated before the meeting.  The important thing
is that we clear out the issues list by the end of the IETF
and get new drafts ASAP after that.

The other choice was a 1 week Last Call on proposals and
proposed consensus, which isn't enough time.


>Sharon

Andy



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com] 
>Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 10:02 AM
>To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
>Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: RE: Begin WG Last Call: NETCONF Issue List
>
>
>At 04:54 AM 2/6/2004, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>>Hi
>>
>>Just doing a bit of math, it seems that this update will come our after 
>>the Korea meeting. Is that correct?
>
>The I-D cutoff occurs during this Last Call period.
>I've asked the authors to update what they can.
>The plan is to get the issues resolved and then get
>the drafts updated ASAP.
>
>
>>Sharon
>>
>>-
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>--
>to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
>the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
>archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/> 


--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>