[dtn-interest] Re: [IRSG] DTNRG arch document ready to send to RFC editor

Kevin-

This is a slightly modified variant of the language in RFC3932 that  
is used for independent submissions.  When we started the IRTF RFC  
stream discussions I negotiated use of this language with the IESG.   
I'm open to finding better words.

If we have a 'blurb' I'd like it to be the same for all documents.   
draft-irtf-rfcs-00.txt has two, one for documents that have been  
introduced to the IETF at some time in the past and another for the  
rest. (See section 2.6 of http://www.irtf.org/chairfiles/draft-irtf- 
rfcs-00.txt)

Ran Atkinson has suggested that we shoot to have the disclaimer  
removed altogether.  Getting the IESG to accept that would require a  
strong push from the community -- e.g, RGs (& chairs).

--aaron

On Jan 11, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Kevin Fall wrote:

> iThe disclaimer sounds a little harsh (maybe it should say  
> 'deployment on the public Internet) but I guess is otherwise right.
>
> - K
>
> On Jan 11, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Aaron Falk wrote:
>
>> Stephen-
>>
>> Should I assume that you would like the doc to be Informational (as
>> opposed to Experimental) and that the IESG use this 'blurb' (see
>> draft-irtf-rfcs for the alternative):
>>
>>       "This RFC is a product of the Internet Research Task Force and
>>        is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.  The
>>        IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research and
>>        development activities.  These results might not be suitable
>>        for deployment."
>> ?
>>
>> --aaron
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Aaron,
>>>
>>> In accordance with current IRTF processes, the DTNRG arch
>>> document [1], is now finished IRSG review and ready for you
>>> to send to the RFC editor.
>>>
>>> The tracker ticket [2] for this has links to the various stages of
>>> the review, including the last entry which links to the "go ahead"
>>> messages [3,4] from the folks whose comments were addressed in the
>>> last stage of the review. The original IRSG reviews are [5,6]
>>> and the RG "please ok" thread is [7].
>>>
>>> I'll be shepherd for this document which is intended to become
>>> an informational RFC.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Stephen.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-dtnrg-arch-08.txt
>>> [2] http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/6
>>> [3] http://mailman.dtnrg.org/pipermail/dtn-interest/2006-December/
>>> 002456.html
>>> [4] http://mailman.dtnrg.org/pipermail/dtn-interest/2007-January/
>>> 002486.html
>>> [5] http://mailman.dtnrg.org/pipermail/dtn-interest/2006-May/
>>> 002173.html
>>> [6] http://mailman.dtnrg.org/pipermail/dtn-interest/2006-May/
>>> 002173.html
>>> [7] http://mailman.dtnrg.org/pipermail/dtn-interest/2006-February/
>>> 002091.html
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRSG mailing list
>> IRSG@mailman.isi.edu
>> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg
>>