Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call Expired: <draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-14.txt> (APPSDIR review)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 10 April 2013 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB0B21F8FE8; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 01:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SaTAkEgP2WfG; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 01:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BECA21F8FDF; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 01:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.234.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3A8YIVM021489 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Apr 2013 01:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1365582871; bh=Nu0lSpMWgJhF0PKxIqrPZd7Tgt3yJ7jOUWJ2GIVvCLo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=IyvPfLgxwOkFqCYj4/aaE4I84HObdAODF9baaG0XlBcEDs+c2Tu1+2L32EQjhw6N2 FwR2cUWkqdNAnIohh3b3T07xHAie0ZGXd3q53GpyzvOuKtkQ6hl/U97VTX4UeW6aNv RAGhsb+NKDidnitjrybwD4AiMN2ufSef0DBRpSQs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1365582871; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Nu0lSpMWgJhF0PKxIqrPZd7Tgt3yJ7jOUWJ2GIVvCLo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=1Us48ceKpF22RVeRctjGJ8pJIyyPkxNyXidS10y1OZXVXAQIe6TjDBnAn7AbQlaoh Kz8ikQeiu1r4YpsR8tP2uq3+7RJyYd+7KFZG0vP6B+EUW8uxYWAFJ45yLpY/1Z4l0i 87tQmST4DQVSRizy3c3k5drqPysVAn5IVV9tugdA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130410010433.0ca8b920@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 01:24:28 -0700
To: "Salvatore D'Antonio" <salvatore.dantonio@uniparthenope.it>, draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech.all@tools.ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <001501ce35be$68c93c00$3a5bb400$@dantonio@uniparthenope.it>
References: <20130401072846.32360.9502.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5162C44B.5030904@cisco.com> <005701ce3538$8f0b3480$ad219d80$@dantonio@uniparthenope.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20130409084702.0c6104b8@elandnews.com> <001501ce35be$68c93c00$3a5bb400$@dantonio@uniparthenope.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ipfix@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call Expired: <draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-14.txt> (APPSDIR review)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:34:34 -0000

Hi Salvatore,
At 00:38 10-04-2013, Salvatore D'Antonio wrote:
>I did not adequately addressed your comment because I thought that the
>guidelines specified in RFC 5226 were sufficient to deal with the issues
>concerning the management of the sub-registry.

Ok.

>I would greatly appreciate if you could provide me with the reference to a
>Draft where documentation and criteria for managing assignments are
>specified so that I may use such Draft as an example.

Section 4.1 of RFC 5226 points to Sections 6 and 7.2 in RFC 3748 as 
an example about Expert Review.  Section 7.1 of RFC 5102 is another 
example.  I suggest discussing the proposed change with the document 
shepherd or the Area Director to see whether it is appropriate.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy