Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] ISIS to go standards track.

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:45:27 -0700

> The next step will be to determine which documents should be placed on
> the standards track. This decision should be based on (1) and (2) from
> above, and the ISO agreement RFC 3563
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3563.txt). We will do this in a separate
> thread.

Alex proposed to me an initial set of documents which we might consider 
for taking down the STDs track.

   RFC 1195 (IPv4)-- Already PS
   RFC 2966 (Two-level prefix distribution)
   draft-ietf-isis-wg-mib-13.txt
   draft-ietf-isis-traffic-05.txt
   draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-05.txt
   draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-19.txt
   RFC 3787 (IP Interop)

He also points out that in taking these documents down standards track 
we may want to consider combining RFC 1195, RFC 2966, traffic, and RFC 
3787 into a single standards track document. This would leave the MIB, 
IPv6 and GMPLS documents to go STDs track standalone.

I'd like to open this up for discussion at this point.

Thanks,
Chris.

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

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:58:44 -0400 (EDT)

> He also points out that in taking these documents down standards track we
> may want to consider combining RFC 1195, RFC 2966, traffic, and RFC 3787
> into a single standards track document. This would leave the MIB, IPv6
> and GMPLS documents to go STDs track standalone.

I would tend to agree with this--it should be easy enough to combine them
into one doc, and it might actually save the WG some time in the process,
rather than juggling four different doc's.

:-)

Russ

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone