Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02
Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de> Mon, 16 October 2006 01:41 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZHTU-0004oc-Qb; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:41:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZHTS-0004kO-JW for ips@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:41:02 -0400
Received: from kyoto.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZHTR-0006Kf-37 for ips@ietf.org; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:41:02 -0400
Received: from lars.local (p4071-ipbf506hodogaya.kanagawa.ocn.ne.jp [124.86.111.71]) by kyoto.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D339B1BAC9E for <ips@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:40:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lars.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB8B24E89B for <ips@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:40:56 +0900 (JST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <D2027212-B716-445B-8FB2-FE43F90228D3@netlab.nec.de>
References: <D2027212-B716-445B-8FB2-FE43F90228D3@netlab.nec.de>
Message-Id: <FE8C3738-D385-440F-8547-E4C8A3E321DB@netlab.nec.de>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de>
Subject: Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:40:55 +0900
To: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9a2be21919e71dc6faef12b370c4ecf5
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1815041379=="
Errors-To: ips-bounces@ietf.org
On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:28, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Finally - why is this going for Informational and not PS? PS seems
> appropriate.
To be precise, I saw David's note on this from the document writeup
("This document is being published as Informational because RFC 3720
indicates that this class of key specification should be published as
informational.")
It's unfortunate that 3720 doesn't also allow publication at
Standards Track; I wonder what the rationale for this was.
Intuitively, this should be OK, because Standards Track publication
has a higher bar.
If the WG decides to go for Informational because of 3720, I'm OK
with it. It may make sense to add a short note to the introduction
explaining this.
Lars
--
Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories
_______________________________________________ Ips mailing list Ips@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
- [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-… Lars Eggert
- Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodea… Lars Eggert
- Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodea… Dave W
- Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodea… Julian Satran
- RE: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodea… Black_David
- Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodea… Lars Eggert
- RE: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodea… Julian Satran