draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-papi [Re: draft-ietf-trade-iotp-v1.0-set-02.txt for informational]

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

When we discussed this document in december, I missed that we actually 
talked about _two_ documents which should stick together.

IESG-Secretary: Can you split the ballot as you already ok:ed this -set 
document, and handle the papi document separately?

   paf

On torsdag, dec 19, 2002, at 07:03 Europe/Stockholm, Patrik Fältström 
wrote:

> FYI: There was a hickup on this document because IANA asked whether an 
> IANA action was needed. That is not the case, and it has been 
> clarified with the following IANA considerations section.
>
> Based on this, and the fact that no IANA action was needed, my notes 
> as well as Jaquelines say this document will go with this RFC-Editor 
> note.
>
>    paf
>
>
> RFC-Editor note:
>
> (1) Please replace:
>
> OLD:
>
> 8.2.1 Definition of BrandId
>
>     BrandId should be used registered identification for IANA.  Now, 
> the
>     following BrandIds have registered:
>
>     Amex, Dankort, JCB, MasterCard, NICOS and VISA
>
> NEW:
>
> 8.2.1 Definition of BrandId
>
>     BrandId should be used registered identification for IANA.  Now, 
> the
>     following BrandIds have registered:
>
>     Amex, Dankort, JCB, Maestro, MasterCard, MICOS, VISA,
>     atCredits, EZpay, GeldKarte, Mondex, paybox
>
>
> (2) Please insert:
>
>     IANA Considerations
>
>     This document do not ask for any action from IANA. It references
>     an existing registry, iotp-codes, where at the time of publication
>     of this RFC the following BrandID's are registered:
>
>         Amex, Dankort, JCB, Maestro, MasterCard, MICOS, VISA,
>         atCredits, EZpay, GeldKarte, Mondex, paybox