Subject: RE: [Gen-art] RE: draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:16:44 -0400

Peter,

	Thanks for promptly completing these changes.

	The draft version you attached satisfies the minor
comments I had provided.  This draft will be completely
ready for submission to the RFC Editor for publishing as
a BCP RFC - as soon as Mark Townsley is satisfied with
the resolution of the reference issues...

--
Eric 

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Peter Arberg [mailto:[email-masked]] 
--> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:22 PM
--> To: 'Mark Townsley'; 'Gray, Eric'
--> Cc: 'Vince Mammoliti'; [email-masked]
--> Subject: [Gen-art] RE: draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt
--> 
--> Hi,
--> 
--> thanks Eric for the review and the good change suggestions.
--> 
--> I have updated the document with all your suggestions, and attached
--> it for reference.
--> 
--> With regards to the informative references, Mark what do 
--> you suggest ?
--> 
--> Do we wait for [BERRY] and [ARBERG] to get RFC numbers and 
--> then move 
--> them to normative references ?
--> 
--> With regards to [CARREL] I do not think anyone is looking 
--> at moving this
--> draft forward, but it is implemented in BRAS equipment 
--> today, and is in
--> use in networks, so we somehow need to keep the reference.
--> 
--> thanks,
--> Peter
--> 
--> > -----Original Message-----
--> > From: Mark Townsley [mailto:[email-masked]] 
--> > Sent: 31. maj 2006 15:04
--> > To: Gray, Eric
--> > Cc: Peter Arberg; Vince Mammoliti; [email-masked]
--> > Subject: Re: draft-arberg-pppoe-iana-01.txt
--> > 
--> > Gray, Eric wrote:
--> > > 
--> > ==============================================================
--> > =========
--> > >
--> > > First, while I have to agree the three references listed as 
--> > Informative
--> > > are what I would imagine most people could agree to be just 
--> > that, it is
--> > > probable that IANA cannot create the registries indicated 
--> > until these
--> > > references are published, and possible that IANA will not 
--> > want this to
--> > > be published until they can create the corresponding 
--> > registries.  This
--> > > means that these references are essentially Normative in 
--> > their effect
--> > > on publication of this draft.
--> > >
--> > > Is IANA going to be willing to allow publication of this 
--> > document as a
--> > > BCP without first creating the registries?  Can IANA create 
--> > a registry
--> > > with references to WIP?
--> > >
--> > > 
--> > --------------------------------------------------------------
--> > ---------
--> > >
--> > >   
--> > Indeed you have uncovered a couple of bugs here, Thanks Eric.
--> > 
--> > I went to check up on these three references. The [BERRY] 
--> > reference is 
--> > for a draft that was actually approved by the IESG back 
--> in Jan, but 
--> > seems to have popped out of the RFC Editor's queue shortly 
--> > after. I had 
--> > not noticed and am following up.
--> > 
--> > The [ARBERG] reference was just approved days ago, I assume it is 
--> > advancing normally. Michelle (IANA) specifically acknowledged 
--> > the IANA 
--> > considerations section (which provides a cross-reference 
--> to the iana 
--> > document) when this happened last week.
--> > 
--> > With respect to the [CARREL] reference (PADN and PADM), no 
--> > one has asked 
--> > me to publish this, and I am not aware of its 
--> advancement. The values 
--> > are FCFS, so technically a draft is not needed, but it would 
--> > be good to 
--> > know if anyone is going to advance this or not. Perhaps it 
--> > should not be 
--> > in the initial list? Authors, do we know if this is 
--> > implemented and in use?
--> > 
--> > Thanks,
--> > 
--> > - Mark
--> > 
--> 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art