Subject: draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-01.txt

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:34:12 -0400

Hi,

Donald Eastlake has requested that 
draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-01.txt be published as
an Informational RFC obsoleting RFC 2777.  Harald has asked the NomCom 
WG to review this doc before taking the request to the IESG and IETF 
last call.

Please take some time to review and to send comments to this list.

Thanks

a.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:08:25 -0700

if the wg is being asked to adopt this as a wg document, i would
support, but not demand, that.

if the wg is being asked to agree that it is ok for the ietf
process to run it through as an individual submission, i.e. that
the wg does not see it as an end-run on the wg, i can agree to
that.  though i note that it does specify some process which might
more appropriately be in the base noncom document.  the old opsys
design of separation of mechanism and policy comes to mind.  but i
would not make a fuss as it stands.

i am not qualified to validate the code.

randy

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:54:20 -0400

Hi Randy,

This is a case of the later.  The AD, Harald, is asking the WG to review
the document and make comments to aid him in making his decsions.  The 
WG has not been asked to take this on as a WG document.

The comment you make about the inclusion of process that might be better 
  suited to the Nomcom process document is definately pertinent.

Thanks
a.

Randy Bush wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:57:16 -0400 (EDT)

if memory serves - previous versions of this were just info
documents and that seemed fine at the time

Scott

----

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:08:25 -0700

randy