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

[Aaron Falk <[e-mail]>]

Sounds good.  If you could write up a 'request to publish' message like
the template below, I think we're good to go.

--aaron

[e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Aaron,
>
> I do not believe that changes are needed at this time to the I-D.
> The nits that were identified can be addressed duing the rfc ed process.
>
> -Basavaraj
>
>
> On 5/1/09 2:09 PM, "ext Aaron Falk" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi Rajeev-
>>
>> I didn't see any responses.  If your decision was that no changes were
>> needed, I'm not challenging it.  (Although, it is the shepherd's
>> responsibility to ensure the reviewers are aware of that decision.)  I
>> just want to avoid substantive changes once the doc goes to RFC Ed.
>>
>> --aaron
>>
>> Rajeev Koodli wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Aaron,
>>>
>>> we also responded to the comments. I didn't think that a revision was
>>> necessary. I will go back and have another look.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Rajeev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On *Thu, 4/30/09, Aaron Falk /<[e-mail]>/* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     From: Aaron Falk <[e-mail]>
>>>     Subject: Re: [IRSG] Request to progress I-D
>>>     draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions to RFC editor
>>>     To: "Rajeev Koodli" <[e-mail]>
>>>     Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>>     Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 5:55 AM
>>>
>>>     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 <[e-mail]
>>>>         
>>>     </mc/compose?to=[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>       
>>>>  
>>>>         
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>           
>>>     </mc/compose?to=[e-mail]> 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
>>>>> [e-mail] </mc/compose?to=[e-mail]>
>>>>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>>           
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     IRSG mailing list
>>>     [e-mail] </mc/compose?to=[e-mail]>
>>>     http://mailman..isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg
>>>     <http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mobopts mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
>>>  
>>>       
>
>