Re: WG Last Call on draft-narten-ipr-3979-3rd-party-fix-00.txt

Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:33:52 +0300 (EEST), Pekka Savola
> <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>
>>>Per my note of two weeks ago, this is a formal WG Last Call on
>>>draft-narten-ipr-3979-3rd-party-fix-00.txt.  Given the nature of the
>>>document, I'm making this a one-week Last Call.
>>
>>It seems OK.
>>
>>However, I wonder about the process.  Do we really need to publish 
>>every single small fix as an RFC (a BCP at that)?  Shouldn't there be 
>>a better way to handle this, given that 3979 revision is already under 
>>way (e.g., go as far as the IESG approval of the document, but never 
>>actually publish it)?  But this is off-topic for this list...
>>
> 
> Revising 3979 -- or rather, gearing up to do so -- is on our agenda for
> San Diego.  But how long will that take to do, and do properly?

As with the small update we just made to 3978, this is a question
of expediency - we've already had to deal with this glitch in
3979 once this year, and we potentially encounter it whenever a
third-party disclosure is made.

(My personal opinion about this last call is +1.)

    Brian

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg