IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: drums2?

ned+ietf-822@mrochek.com Wed, 14 August 2002 20:38 UTC

Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g7EKcVg13811 for ietf-822-bks; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g7EKcUw13806 for <ietf-822@imc.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01KLAEIUJV4W0001B1@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf-822@imc.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:37:27 -0700
From: ned+ietf-822@mrochek.com
Subject: Re: drums2?
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:11:08 -0400" <3D5AB95C.3020103@att.com>
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Cc: ietf-822@imc.org
Message-id: <01KLAG31RZ4A0001B1@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <3D5AB95C.3020103@att.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-822@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-822.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-822-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

> 2821/2822 are "Proposed Standards" and have been out for 1.5 years now.
> What will it take to move them forward to Draft Standard?

At a minimum a new version of 2821 needs to be prepared. A new version
of 2822 may be needed as well.

I suspect 2822bis would be able to move to draft. I think it is unlikely
that 2821bis will be able to.

> We've had
> considerably longer than 1.5 years to get operational experience with
> them, and I KNOW that there are lots of interoperational instances of each.

> 	Tony Hansen
> 	tony@att.com

> P.S. If 2821 and 2822 need to be reissued, it might also be nice if they
> could be done in time to get the numbers 3821 and 3822. My estimate is
> that those numbers will be reached in about 23 months. That should give
> us enough time to work on them, if we started now. :-)

Good point ;-)

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email