Re: [RADIR] finishing the problem statement

sorry.  I looked it over this morning and only replied to Thomas.  I think its appropriate as revised and only pointed out some gramatical errors this time.

Cheers
Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: radir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:radir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jason Schiller
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:02 PM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: radir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RADIR] finishing the problem statement

I'm ok with the new boiler plate...  looking over the new text now.

__Jason

==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller@uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller@verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Thomas Narten wrote:

> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:07:18 -0400
> From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
> To: radir@ietf.org
> Subject: [RADIR] finishing the problem statement
>
> We are a bit overdue on revising the problem statement and getting it
> out...
>
> I spoke with Olaf a while back and he seemed to think that much of the
> initial excitement about the topic had died down again, and anyway RRG
> is where the work is actually happening. So he is inclined to see the
> document shipped and close the directorate. However, the current
> problem statement (as we have discussed amongst  ourselves) does not
> have any sort of broad concensus, so it couldn't get any sort of
> official blessing. If we were to ask for publication now, we'd likely
> be told to publish it as individual submission.
>
> As we've discussed before, Olaf has said the pressures on routing
> section had good stuff, but that the business section in particular
> was problematic. We've had past discussions about that together with
> some suggestions for improvements.
>
> I would like to get this document published as an informational RFC,
> but one with IETF blessing/support. That means we have to get folk
> familiar with this space to support publication of our document.
>
> I spent some time going over the document in January, reviewed our
> previous discussions and made a number of changes. I then didn't
> followup and close the loop and get back to this list.
>
> One thing that of course happens when one re-reads a document after 6
> months is that one sees all sorts of things that should be tweaked.
>
> Rather than try to do an issue by issue review, I've just gone ahead
> and revised the document; I'll send it (and diffs) in separate messages.
>
> The ID cutoff is today (7PM West Coast Time). I'd like to go ahead and
> post the revised document, but if anyone thinks I should not (whether
> on principle -- because you want to review more carefully first, or
> because you have specific issues with the revision), please speak up.
> I plan to post unless I get a "no". (I don't have plans to have the
> document discussed in SF, so it is not critical that it get posted
> today).
>
> Finally, I've used the following boilerplate:
>
>    This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
>    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may contain material
>    from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
>    available before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
>    copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
>    Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
>    IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license from
>    the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
>    document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
>    derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
>    Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
>    translate it into languages other than English.
>
> I assume that we are all OK with submitting under the updated
> boilerplate that grants full rights to the IETF trust, but the
> document can't say that until I get explicite confirmation from each
> of us on that point.
>
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> RADIR mailing list
> RADIR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir
>

_______________________________________________
RADIR mailing list
RADIR@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir