Re: [netmod] Last Call: draft-schoenw-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01 (20130204)

[David Kessens <[e-mail]>]

Dan, Bert, 

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:29:23AM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> 
> If the next version is renamed according to the naming convention for a WG document and the header reflects the obsolescence of RFC 6021 - no concern!

&

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:13:39AM +0100, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
> IF you do a new revision and a new WGLC, then you might as well
> rename the document to a wg document name (draft-ietf-netmod...) at
> the same time.

That is indeed part of the plan!

David Kessens
---


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Kessens [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:53 AM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] Last Call: draft-schoenw-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01
> > (20130204)
> > 
> > 
> > Dan,
> > 
> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 09:55:29AM +0000, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > >
> > > Does this document obsolete RFC6021? The header says nothing about
> > this.
> > 
> > for completeness sake: yes
> > 
> > > Is this an official WG document? If so, why is it not named draft-
> > ietf-netmod-rfc6021bisp... or something similar?
> > 
> > We are jumping the gun a bit here: it is not really about a new
> > document, but putting the already agreed upon content it in a new
> > version of another already published document.
> > 
> > So yes, the Last Call is about getting it published and making it a wg
> > document at the same time. The last was implicit but I should have
> > called that out.
> > 
> > Having said this, it seems a new version will be necessary anyways and I
> > will be able to correct all this with better wording in a new Last Call
> > of a new and improved version.
> > 
> > I hope this helps, and let me know if you have any remaining concerns,
> > 
> > David Kessens
> > ---

David Kessens
---