Re: [ipwave] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-28: (with COMMENT)

"Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <> Tue, 05 April 2022 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA99E3A0C5D; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9XxM544F-SLk; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPV6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 289773A0C66; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:45:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CShKTqr8RyjLqLMc2M0BkMoe"
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 18:45:22 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>, Lars Eggert <>, The IESG <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <>
From: "Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-28: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 16:45:33 -0000

Hello everyone,

Like Beetlejuice his name having been thrice invoked, the ISE appears.

On 05.04.22 16:28, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
> Lars, to respond very directly no it is not premature to list AERO and OMNI.
> They are in the RFC-ISE editors queue for publication as Informational RFCs
> at the current time, and the RFC-ISE tells me he is actively seeking reviewers.

This is correct.  The current state of these drafts is that they are 
awaiting the ISE review.  Assuming they get beyond that point, and some 
drafts do not, the ISE will solicit reviews.   The ISE always welcomes 
*un*solicited reviews at any stage prior to publication.  I am 
particularly interested in hearing from those who either are 
implementing OMNI and AERO or are planning to do so in the very near 
future.  As a reminder, the ISE reserves the right to decline 
publication at any stage prior to RFCs being issued.

> If some working group wants to adopt them, then I am sure the RFC-ISE
> would be willing to shift them to a working group track.

As a matter of policy, the ISE will always honor the wishes of authors 
to remove drafts from the Independent Stream queue.  It is, of course, 
up to the IETF to decide whether to adopt any particular draft for 
further work.

> But, as far as
> revisions go, they are now in what would be considered a "last call" status.

The ISE does not issue last calls, and each of these drafts is closer to 
the beginning of the process, rather than the end.

If you have any questions about ISE process, please see or otherwise feel free to 
contact me directly.

Eliot (ISE)