RE: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Sounds good. I can also tell NetConf that they look at
rev 00 as a (initial) guideline but that they should certainly
comment if they see issues since it is only that: an initial
draft. Makes sense?

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: donderdag 11 september 2003 13:33
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt 
> 
> 
> > Formally this I-D has expired. 
> > Are we planning any more work on this?
> 
> I think we should.
> 
> > Are we planning on an IESG statement instead?
> 
> I had hoped that by going the ID route, we'd get more community
> discussion. But I believe the only comments I got were from Bernard,
> i.e., the ones you included in your note.
> 
> How about I go back and review the document and Bernard's comments and
> then revise/summarize where I think things are at. I'd also welcome
> comments on the ID as it stands (though after not having looked at it
> for 8 months, I'm sure I'll cringe at some of what I wrote).
> 
> Thomas
>