Re: [Mobopts] Request to progress I-D draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions to RFC editor

Aaron Falk <falk@bbn.com> Thu, 30 April 2009 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <falk@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: mobopts@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mobopts@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9FC63A6F55 for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 06:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.211, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qwXhX0khVP1e for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 06:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx11.bbn.com (mx11.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D77B28C2F9 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 06:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp89-081-146.bbn.com ([128.89.81.146]) by mx11.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <falk@bbn.com>) id 1LzW8y-0007XJ-DG; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:17:40 -0400
Message-ID: <49F9A4F4.6090005@bbn.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:17:40 -0400
From: Aaron Falk <falk@bbn.com>
Organization: BBN Technologies
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli@gmail.com>
References: <C6124431.26C6C%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> <49EDCB47.2060607@isi.edu> <3d57679a0904241909l6dc4e370r75c4154df48717ef@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3d57679a0904241909l6dc4e370r75c4154df48717ef@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: irsg@ISI.EDU, mobopts@irtf.org, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [Mobopts] Request to progress I-D draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions to RFC editor
X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility Optimizations <mobopts.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/mobopts>
List-Post: <mailto:mobopts@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:16:43 -0000

(resending from non-blocked address...)

Hi Rajeev, Basavaraj-

The poll was conducted on rev 12 of the doc.  I saw substantive comments
(i.e., beyond typos) from Wes Eddy and Stephen Farrell.  The current
version in the ID repository is still 12.  So, my assumption is no
changes to the draft have been made in response to the comments.  So, am
I confused?  Did the comments result in no changes?

--aaron

Rajeev Koodli wrote:
> Hi Aaron,
>
> author's perspective: We did respond to all the comments and there was
> subsequent response which indicated that the ID is ready for
> publication.
>
> A couple of typos were caught which can be fixed in RFC editor's review.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Rajeev
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Aaron Falk <falk@isi.edu> wrote:
>   
>> Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote:
>>     
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> The IRSG poll for I-D: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions has
>>> been completed. Other than a few nits which can be addressed as part of the
>>> RFC-editor process, there were no objections to publishing the document.
>>>
>>> The conclusion is that the I-D is ready for publication.
>>>
>>> In my role as the shepherd for this I-D, I recommend progressing this I-D to
>>> the RFC editor for publication.
>>>
>>> -Basavaraj
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Hi Basavaraj-
>>
>> It doesn't look like the draft has been revised to respond to the
>> comments from the IRSG review.  Wes Eddy and Stephen Farrell sent
>> substantive but non-blocking comments.  Please respond to those that
>> before requesting publication.  (The RFC Editor's 'Authors 48 Hours
>> review' isn't intended to do another editing pass but to fix editorial
>> issues that come up during RFC preparation.)
>>
>> When that's done, I'd like to ask that you prepare a 'request to
>> publish' message that has a little more about the review history of the
>> document.  I'm attaching a message from another doc so you can see
>> what's expected.
>>
>> Let me know if you have questions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --aaron
>>
>>     
>>> Aaron: This is a request to publish the ICCRG's document
>>> draft-irtf-iccrg-cc-rfcs-06 as an Informational RFC.
>>>
>>> The draft has been revised based on a number of reviews,
>>> and the latest version incorporates editorial marks that
>>> were submitted by Stephen Farrell and Juergen Shoenwaelder
>>> during IRSG Review / Poll, where 2 "Ready to Publish" votes
>>> were received, and none otherwise.  Prior to this, the
>>> document has been reviewed and modified based on other IRSG
>>> member reviews (Sally Floyd and Mark Allman) during the
>>> ICCRG process.
>>>
>>> During the ICCRG's development of the document, specific
>>> public reviews that changes were incorporated from were
>>> submitted on the ICCRG list by:
>>>
>>> - Rex Buddenberg
>>> - Mitchell Erblichs
>>> - Lachlan Andrew
>>> - Sally Floyd
>>> - Gorry Fairhurst
>>> - Lars Eggert
>>> - Mark Allman
>>>
>>> The issue tracker entry includes the versions of the
>>> draft since IRSG review started, and the reviews from
>>> Juergen and Stephen:
>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/25
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mobopts mailing list
>> Mobopts@irtf.org
>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
>>
>>