Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt

[sob at harvard.edu (Scott Bradner)]

works for me (assuming that you include non-IETF documents when you
say "IETF review documents")

Scott

----

>From hartmans at mit.edu  Thu Jul 14 18:12:46 2005
X-Original-To: sob at newdev.harvard.edu
Delivered-To: sob at newdev.harvard.edu
To: sob at harvard.edu (Scott Bradner)
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt
References: <20050714165238.9899741F6D8 at newdev.harvard.edu>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:12:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20050714165238.9899741F6D8 at newdev.harvard.edu> (Scott
 Bradner's message of "Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:52:38 -0400 (EDT)")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

would it be reasonable to just say that we are going to always last
call IETF review documents?  Personally I'd approve of this option
unless people think it is too restrictive.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf