Re: Informational RFC-to-be - draft-ietf-uri-url-irp-04.txt

John Kunze <jak@ckm.ucsf.edu> Fri, 22 March 1996 19:49 UTC

Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John Kunze <jak@ckm.ucsf.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 11:47:24 -0800
Message-Id: <9603221947.AA16377@mango>
To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, moore@cs.utk.edu
Cc: iesg@isi.edu, jak@library.ucsf.edu, rfc-ed@isi.edu, rfc-editor@isi.edu
Subject: Re: Informational RFC-to-be - draft-ietf-uri-url-irp-04.txt

> From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
> To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
> Cc: rfc-ed@isi.edu, rfc-editor@isi.edu, jak@library.ucsf.edu, iesg@isi.edu
> Subject: Re: Informational RFC-to-be - draft-ietf-uri-url-irp-04.txt
> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:47:34 +0100
> 
> Keith, Joyce:
> the current rule for new URL formats is that they require standards-track
> RFCs. (Rule by fiat from the ADs after URI self-destructed without a
> review document).
> 
> John Kunze, I see you on the CC list: Is it OK with you and your co-authors
> that I issue this as a 4-week Last Call on the IETF list?
> I will take your word for it that this draft has had adequate review in the
> Z39.50 community and that rough consensus is achieved there, so that only
> the IETF community remains to be checked.

Yes, issuing a 4-week Last Call would be fine.  I can verify that the draft
has had adequate review within the Z39.50 community and rough consensus has
been achieved.

One detail:  one of my co-authors' address changed last month -- to whom
would I send the correction for the I-D author address section?

-John

Informational RFC-to-be - draft-ietf-uri-url-irp-… rfc-ed
Re: Informational RFC-to-be - draft-ietf-uri-url-… Keith Moore
Re: Informational RFC-to-be - draft-ietf-uri-url-… Harald.T.Alvestrand
Re: Informational RFC-to-be - draft-ietf-uri-url-… John Kunze