Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 07 May 2012 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA15E21F85C4 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 07:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.381, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NjgyVFfUY8W1 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 07:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A9F21F85BB for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 07:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 972A982C7; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:29:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id F05C298B98; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E563F98141; Mon, 7 May 2012 10:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1881816876.292488.1336400028170.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
References: <1881816876.292488.1336400028170.JavaMail.root@mail17.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 10:30:30 -0400
Message-ID: <26312.1336401030@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] I-D Action: draft-ietf-roll-p2p-rpl-10.txt
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 14:30:34 -0000

>>>>> "Mukul" == Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> writes:
    >> I had suggested "standards action", but IETF Review is as strong
    >> or
    Mukul> stronger.  So I'm happy.

    Mukul> I did not want to allow only standards track documents to
    Mukul> allocate a code.

Standards Track documents could in theory be individual submissions,
going straight to the RFC-EDITOR (IMAP was done this way), but in
practice they wind up being reviewed by the IESG anyway.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works 
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/