[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-ietf-msec-gdoi-07 versus 08 version
- To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
- Subject: Re: draft-ietf-msec-gdoi-07 versus 08 version
- From: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 12:39:16 -0700
- Cc: Joyce Reynolds <jkrey@ISI.EDU>, bew@cisco.com, mbaugher@cisco.com, housley@vigilsec.com, thardjono@verisign.com, hh@sparta.com, canetti@watson.ibm.com, iesg@ietf.org, iana@iana.org, iesg-secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- In-reply-to: <20030512174332.732A37B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>
- References: <20030512174332.732A37B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
Steve,
If the changes are minimal, do you think the authors would be willing
to send us a list of changes during the authors 48 hours? It would
save a great deal of time in processing the document.
RFC Editor
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 01:43:32PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <200305121613.h4CGD9124712@boreas.isi.edu>, Joyce Reynolds writes:
> >
> >
> >It would have been nice if the RFC Editor had known sooner to use
> ><draft-ietf-msec-gdoi-08>, instead of the IESG approved (as a PS)
> ><draft-ietf-msec-gdoi-07>. We already did the editing and nroffing of
> >the 07 version. IANA just finished its work on this document and sent
> >us a message on 6 May. We were in final editing stages to publish.
>
> Sorry -- I blew the timing. But the changes are fairly small; wdiff
> might do the trick.
> >
> >So, version 08 is the version (which I note has a write day of 8 May)
> >is the one the RFC Editor should be using. Can the IESG-Secretary send
> >RFC Editor a note directing us to use 08 instead of 07?
> >
> That should indeed be done.
>
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
> http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
>