[ietf-provreg] Re: IESG Review Request: EPP to Draft

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

At 12:34 PM -0400 9/25/06, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>Ted, Lisa:
>
>With recent Internet-Draft document updates and posting of an
>implementation report I believe that all of the RFC 2026
>proposed-to-draft milestones that can be met by the former provreg
>working group have been met.  I would like to ask you to evaluate the
>Internet-Draft documents for elevation to Draft Standard status.  Here
>is a link to the implementation report:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFCs3730-3734_implem.txt

I've added the documents below to the tracker, with an intended
status of "Draft Standard".  I'll review the implementation report
and get back to you on a Last Call announcement.   As you know,
we'll need to call out any of the Proposed Standard references
in the Last Call, to avoid downref problems.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie



>There are some normative references that are still at Proposed Standard
>status.  Here's a list of the documents and the references in question:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis-03.t
>xt
>RFC 3023 (XML Media Types)
>RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps)
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3731bis-04.t
>xt
>RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps)
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3732bis-03.t
>xt
>RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps)
>RFC 3513 (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture)
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-04.t
>xt
>RFC 2822 (Internet Message Format)
>RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps)
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3734bis-03.t
>xt
>RFC 2246 (The TLS Protocol Version 1.0)
>
>Each document includes an appendix containing a list of changes from the
>relevant RFC.  While there were several text changes to clarify portions
>of the text as a result of implementation experience, there were no
>schema changes needed when updating the documents.  The EPP version
>specified in the original RFCs and the -bis documents remains the same.
>
>I'm available to answer any questions.  Thank you for your
>consideration.
>
>-Scott-