Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Float32? and NHDP-MIB reviewer

I agree that STDs track would be best

Bert

On 12/2/10 5:42 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
> My most recent, the breathtakingly trivial RFC 6082, took just
> short of five months, so I agree with Juergen's timeline assessment.
>
> For purposes of re-use of these TCs, I believe it's best for the
> document to be standards-track.  (Unless folks are comfortable
> making normative references to "informational.")
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder"<j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
>> To: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen"<bertietf@bwijnen.net>
>> Cc:<mib-doctors@ietf.org>; "Robert G Cole"<rgcole01@comcast.net>; "Ulrich Herberg"<ulrich@herberg.name>; "Juergen Quittek"
> <quittek@netlab.nec.de>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Float32? and NHDP-MIB reviewer
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 03:59:43PM +0100, Bert (IETF) Wijnen wrote:
>>
>>> But in any event, it will take a while (as does virtually ervery
>>> document in IETF).
>> The fastest thing I have done in recent years was RFC 4789 - which
>> took about 6 months from the very start to publication of the RFC (and
>> this was an AD sponsored individual submission). The timeline can be
>> found here:
>>
>>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoenw-snmp-ether/history/
>>
>> You might save 2-3 weeks at the very beginning and another 1-2 weeks
>> by avoiding the summer break. I guess 5 months is pretty much what you
>> will need to expect - until publication.
>>
>> /js
>>
>> -- 
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103<http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
>> MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
>
>