Re: [apps-discuss] procedural question

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Thu, 02 May 2013 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A94F21F8CE2 for <>; Thu, 2 May 2013 15:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.409
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.476, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ek2SLgB2Xodn for <>; Thu, 2 May 2013 15:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0D521F8B38 for <>; Thu, 2 May 2013 15:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m6so89425wiv.9 for <>; Thu, 02 May 2013 15:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3mY+XpEYFf/YWlUZcsaPv6qEbYRT9JtZL/AC9LgaLHQ=; b=uqLbM+UGeGTjHyebBtv+pnub85VOgaTNYO8vpTyA2uK+rKarf3CuvUMYcEBphQ7GEa Xx9UglaG8GG+WYDtW3t1F0Y3sZxoBSZ1r1OIlOXMiPEfBc61vp7WlfDQ05chSg1r7eQy 8m/1A5U/GK7sEWLCnzHssyLeCp1SV1QZBqcrEvo1Myo9ni+dvuFdE7Rpwo5/mza6PpNf 20Lw3CzR5xKdMwOB6XbR3wJe0yooDf436Lx/4MpZ9b0u3EqfAy1bnbybvcJydC85wInl BdTw0s5s8D2VicGAYLywAZLQuHHu+nQXxNDyi/RaGP2f2fPIXeJjdDoJPB2MfFXU5Bd9 xlYg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id cs4mr10708845wjb.17.1367533079574; Thu, 02 May 2013 15:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 2 May 2013 15:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 15:17:59 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: Erik Wilde <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b5d8cff6d3e1104dbc39b72"
Cc: " application-layer protocols" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] procedural question
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 22:18:08 -0000

For details, see RFC2026, but put very simply:

The typical procedure is to identify one or more working groups whose
charters seem to cover your material, and see if they are willing and able
to take up your draft as a work item.  If you can't, then you can approach
an area director to sponsor the draft as an individual submission.  The
third option is to go through the Independent Submission Editor, for work
that is not directly related to any active working groups.

So, to the WG: Is there any interest in taking up any of these items in

-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Erik Wilde <> wrote:

> hello.
> i have a question about procedural issues: i have three drafts that i
> would like to enter into a formal review process. since these drafts are
> individual submissions, the question (that i have faced before) always is
> how to make the transition from individually posting and discussing the
> drafts, to this more formal process. the current drafts i have been working
> on (and which i believe are ready to enter the formal path to RFCness) are:
> with my previous drafts i always was lucky to have somebody shepherding
> them, but it was always a lucky coincidence to find somebody willing to do
> it. the question i have is how to approach this in a way so that i can make
> this transition from individual drafts to the formal process more
> predictable. are there any recommendations or guidance i could turn to? is
> there a different forum i should ask for this?
> thanks a lot for your help and kind regards,
> dret.
> --
> erik wilde |  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
>            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
>            | |
> ______________________________**_________________
> apps-discuss mailing list