Subject: draft-narten-ipr-3979-3rd-party-fix-00.txt

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:30:40 -0400

Please look at draft-narten-ipr-3979-3rd-party-fix-00.txt.  It looks
completely uncontroversial; we'd like to do a WG Last Call very soon.

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:41:01 +0200

Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
 
> looks completely uncontroversial; we'd like to do a WG Last Call
> very soon.

It's okay.  I'd know tow cases to test this procedure, if that's
relevant and/or interesting.  At some point in time the various
hot fixes of 3978/3979 should be integrated into standalone texts
again (BCP or ION).

Frank

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:08:14 -0700

BCP78 and BCP79 cannot be fractioned into more documents - that is insane -
The scope of these documents is a contract that is nearly impossible to
manage and that is really a bad idea in my opinion.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:05:37 -0400

> manage and that is really a bad idea in my opinion.

We all agree.  One of the agenda items for San Diego -- I'll get the
agenda posted this weekend -- is to revise milestones for the WG; the main
item for that is to produce a clean revision of RFC 3978, as we've long
promised we would.

Given the history of this group, that won't happen as quickly as I'd
like.  Until then, we need bug fixes.