Subject: Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil update

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 16:22:05 -0400

Hi Henning, and powers that be,

Unclear what this means to the LC process.  Is this draft now expected to 
be the final, RFC number assigned, and published .... or (*gasp*) some 
reset of the LC process.   Do we have an expected timeframe for the RFC 
actually coming out (or minimally final title and number assigned).  I 
would desperately like to reference this in a different standard 
(LLDP-MED, now in final ballot in TIA TR-41.4). 

I have not had time to look over the changes yet, but will of course post 
any comments I find. 

Cheers,
Peter Blatherwick
(Editor, LLDP-MED to be published as ANSI/TIA-1057)

Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
31.05.05 18:32

        To:     [email-masked]
        cc: 
        Subject:        [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil update

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-06.txt

This is a minor editorial update reflecting LC comments, including the 
clarification on directionality of DHCP requests, based on the 
discussion at the GEOPRIV interim meeting.

Henning

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 13:35:29 -0700

At 4:22 PM -0400 6/1/05, [email-masked] wrote:
>Unclear what this means to the LC process.  Is this draft now 
>expected to be the final, RFC number assigned, and published .... or 
>(*gasp*) some reset of the LC process.   Do we have an expected 
>timeframe for the RFC actually coming out (or minimally final title 
>and number assigned).  I would desperately like to reference this in 
>a different standard (LLDP-MED, now in final ballot in TIA TR-41.4). 
> 
>
>I have not had time to look over the changes yet, but will of course 
>post any comments I find.  
>
>Cheers,
>Peter Blatherwick

You can check the status of most drafts using the IETF's public
I-D tracker.  For this document, the link would be:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=10671&rfc_flag=0

The document is currently slated to be on the IESG agenda on June 9th; there
is a note in the tracker on the fact that the IESG evaluation will be 
concurrent
with the working group comments confirming the sense of the interim meeting
on how to proceed. ("Last Call issued resolved during interim meeting;
the confirming comment period on the mailing list will end on
6/8/2005. ").  If there are new issues raised during the comment period
then the IESG consideration can be deferred.

You would be a better judge than me of whether IESG approval would be
enough to allow you to reference the document, or whether you'd need
the RFC published.  And, of course, there may be further comments from
the IESG.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie