[Ltru] issue #878 resolution (was: editorial nits in initial registry draft -01)

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Martin Duerst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at adelphia.net>; "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 6:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: editorial nits in initial registry draft -01
>
> Are we actually going to publish the -initial draft as an RFC?
> I seem to remember that at one point, the idea was to not do
> that, because by the time the RFC would be published, it would
> already be out of date. In that scenario, we planned to move
> -initial through (WG and IETF) last call and IESG approval,
> but then go directly to IANA and no further in the RFC process.
> If I'm out of sync here, I'm sorry.
...

Well, that was quite some time ago.  :-)   :-)

Way back on May 28, Scott Hollenbeck, our AD, responded
(of-list) to the co-chairs:
| The last option (information RFC) is the one most commonly used.  It can
| contain both the initial contents and text to let people know that they
| should refer to the registry at a specific location for the most current
| values.  This would be my preference.

On May 31, I posted to the WG mailing list the resolution of issue #878:

| The WG discussion of this issue was inconclusive, so the co-chairs consulted
| with our responsible AD to determine what in his opinion would work best
| logistically with IANA and the IESG to deliver the initial registry contents.
| The conclusion: the registry contents should indeed be put into an internet-draft,
| for publication as an *informational* RFC.  It would  contain both the initial registry
| contents and text to let people know that they  should refer to the registry at a
| specific location for the most current  values.

Randy




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru