Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material")
"Vinton G. Cerf" <vcerf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Sat, 05 December 1992 16:07 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02678; 5 Dec 92 11:07 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02669; 5 Dec 92 11:07 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08685; 5 Dec 92 11:08 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02664; 5 Dec 92 11:06 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08680; 5 Dec 92 11:08 EST
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02658; 5 Dec 92 11:06 EST
To: Fred Baker <fbaker@acc.com>
cc: davin@bellcore.com, poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material")
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 04 Dec 92 17:41:35 PST." <9212050141.AA00511@saffron.acc.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1992 11:06:50 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Vinton G. Cerf" <vcerf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Message-ID: <9212051106.aa02658@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Fred, I think it is implicit that a working group has responsibility for sheparding a standard from proposed to full. Indeed, we have been lax in tracking and reminding working groups about expirations of standards-in-progress that haven't reached Standard status. This message is intended to express agreement with your opinion - vint
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") Fred Baker
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") Vinton G. Cerf