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

RE: Question to WG re: Issues & Fixes

Personally, I'm OK with the document being Standards Track, since the updates to RFC 2865 are modest and seem to be in keeping with existing practice. The other documents are informational, so this document can update them without being Standards Track. 


From: Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>
To: radext mailing list <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Question to WG re: Issues & Fixes
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:02:52 +0100

  The original discussion around the document was that it was
"Informational".  However, it also says:

Updates: 2865, 2866, 2869, 3576, 3579

  And:

Category: Proposed Standard

  Since RFC 2865 is Standards track, updating it via an informational
RFC would not be permitted under the IETF process.  Although the WG
accepted -03 as a work item, we would like to ensure that everyone is
clear on the scope of the document.  We are therefore asking for WG
consensus on the following question:

Q:  Does the WG accept draft-ietf-radext-fixes-00.txt as Proposed
Standard track?

  Please respond in the affirmative or in the negative.

  Alan DeKok.

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




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