Re: [iesg-secretary #5128] Documents for IESG Processing and Last Calls - Re: It's time...

["Jacqueline Hargest" <jhargest@foretec.com>]

Your request #5128 was resolved by jhargest:

These versions are currently in the system.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>From: Joyce Reynolds <jkrey@ISI.EDU>
>Subject: Documents for IESG Processing and Last Calls - Re: It's time...
>To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, randy@psg.com

Folks,

The RFC Editor has been in contact with Bernard Aboba w.r.t. two
Internet Drafts he'd like published as RFCs.  (See messages below.)
They need to be processed through the IESG, not the RFC-ED.

Thanks, Joyce

------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:32:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>
To: Joyce Reynolds <jkrey@ISI.EDU>
cc: randy@psg.com, <paul_congdon@hp.com>, <rfc-editor@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: It's time...
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1

Yes, they should be processed through the IESG and appropriate Area
Director, so that we can get a suitable IETF last call and comment period.

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Joyce Reynolds wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Bernard,
>
> If we understand correctly, you are submitting to the RFC Editor two
> independent submissions for RFC publication:
>
> 	draft-congdon-radius-8021x-22.txt
> 	draft-aboba-radius-rfc2869bis-06.txt
>
> IETF Last Calls are issued by the IESG/IETF Secretariat.  Shouldn't
> these documents be processed through the IESG and appropriate Area
> Director, instead of RFC Editor?  I believe Randy Bush is offline for a
> few days and not reading any email, so this is why we're asking
> clarification from you.
>
> Thanks, Joyce
>
>
>
>
>

------------- End Forwarded Message -------------