Re: draft-ietf-idwg-beep-tunnel-05.txt

[Joyce Reynolds <jkrey@ISI.EDU>]

IESG:

The RFC Editor has recently been receiving queries about publication of
multiple documents that were approved by the IESG "as a set" (see
example query and rfc-ed response below).  A similar query we received
was in regards to draft-ietf-sipping-basic-call-flows-02.txt and
draft-ietf-sipping-pstn-call-flows-02.txt.

Perhaps the IESG would consider *only* announcing multiple documents in
a single action if they are *required* to be published together?

Joyce
(for RFC Editor)

------------- Begin Forwarded Messages -------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:39:49 -0700
From: Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: smb@research.att.com, Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com>
Subject: draft-ietf-idwg-beep-tunnel-05.txt

hi. the above mentioned I-D has been in REF state since december of
last year.  what reference(s) is it waiting on?

thanks,

/mtr

====================================================================

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:32:09 -0700
From: Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: smb@research.att.com, Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com>, RFC Editor 
<rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-idwg-beep-tunnel-05.txt

> Marshall,
> 
> <draft-ietf-idwg-beep-tunnel-05.txt> was approved in the same
> announcement as <draft-ietf-idwg-beep-idxp-07.txt> and
> <draft-ietf-idwg-requirements-10.txt>.  When such documents are
> approved in the same action, we are under the impression that the
> documents should be published as a set (especially when authors prefer
> to have consecutive numbers assigned).   
> 
> <draft-ietf-idwg-beep-idxp-07.txt> has a normative reference to
> <draft-ietf-idwg-idmef-xml-06.txt>, which we do not currently have in
> our queue.  
> 
> If the documents can be published independently, without consecutive
> RFC numbers, please let us know.  We can then continue to process
> those without explicit reference issues.

hi. thanks for the info.

although the two IDs were approved in the same announcement, and although idxp
makes reference to tunnel, tunnel is useful to many other things besides idxp.

hence, it makes sense to split the two of them and let tunnel proceed to
publication...

best,

/mtr

------------- End Forwarded Messages -------------