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

Re: Liaison handling (Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt)

To: "Stephen J Trowbridge" <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: Liaison handling (Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt)
From: "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:02:26 -0700
Cc: "Scott Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu>, <fred@cisco.com>, <harald@alvestrand.no>, <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, <iab@ietf.org>, <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <200308271935.h7RJZ6OA027055@newdev.harvard.edu> <02d801c36d89$7cb1cc80$956015ac@dclkempt40> <3F4E5412.4050606@lucent.com>

> I think this is why Fred wanted that liaisons requiring a reply
> be registered in the ID Tracker. This keeps due dates visible, and
> I believe has a tickler function built in.
>

I think the state machine for ID Tracker is set up for drafts that require
IESG processing, so it might not be the appropriate tool for liason
statements.

But, yes, something similar would be a good idea.

            jak

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Liaison handling (Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt)
  - From: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>

References:
- Re: Liaison handling (Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt)
  - From: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
- Re: Liaison handling (Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt)
  - From: "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
- Re: Liaison handling (Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt)
  - From: Stephen J Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>

Prev by Date: Creating, Rechartering, and Closing a Working Group
Next by Date: Re: Liaison handling (Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt)
Previous by thread: Re: Liaison handling (Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt)
Next by thread: Re: Liaison handling (Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread