issue list for RRECKING crew....

bmanning@isi.edu Mon, 05 September 1994 10:41 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00908; 5 Sep 94 6:41 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00904; 5 Sep 94 6:41 EDT
Received: from moe.rice.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02764; 5 Sep 94 6:41 EDT
Received: from venera.isi.edu by moe.rice.edu (AA20529); Mon, 5 Sep 94 05:18:34 CDT
Received: from zed.isi.edu by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-18) id <AA27940>; Mon, 5 Sep 1994 03:18:31 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: bmanning@isi.edu
Posted-Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 03:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199409051018.AA07671@zed.isi.edu>
Received: by zed.isi.edu (5.65c/4.0.3-4) id <AA07671>; Mon, 5 Sep 1994 03:18:10 -0700
Subject: issue list for RRECKING crew....
To: mo@uunet.uu.net
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 1994 03:18:09 -0700
Cc: rreq@rice.edu
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2437

The short list:
 
 congestion control - jamshid mahdavi of psc
 CIDR               - paul traina of cisco
 net mask guidelines- ditto
 ones/zeros subnets - ditto
 router discovery   - frank kastenholtz of ftp
 deprecate EGP&BGP3 - ditto
 chapt 1-3 rewrite  - geoff huston and robert elz from OZ   
 remove CIDRhostile - ?????
 verbage

Jamshid has submitted a draft and Paul has work that he would like to
install in the existing doc.  Yakov (and others) have taken steps to
deprecate EGP and early versions of BGP from the standards track.

Method of work:
 
 In Seattle, we've solicited volunteers to contribute text for specific
 technological changes. These will all be fairly lengthy and probably
 will involve changes to many parts of the master document.
  
 What we'd like to propose is that any change which requires that
 the working group review the change (e.g. all technology changes,
 and significant editorial changes) either for technical completness,
 correctness, or accuracy,  OR consistancy with the master document
 or other proposed changes, be contributed to the working group as
 an Internet Draft. Each draft should meet the following rough
 requirements:
 - Each draft should be self-contained so that the working group
   can discuss the technology of the draft by reviewing only the
   draft. This way the group can discuss each item without having
   to wander all over 200+ pages of the master document.
 - Each draft should cover only one change. This will allow the working
   group to focus its attention on one topic at a time.
 - Each draft should have at least three parts:
 
   - Overview
   This would be a paragraph or two describing, at the very highest
   level, what the draft proposes. It should not be longer than
   two paragraphs.
   - Change
   This is a detailed, selfcontained section that actually describes the
   change. This should be as detailed and specific as possible,
   ideally to the point where it could stand as its own technical
   specification.
   - Editing Instructions
   This section contains any specific instructions that should be made
   to the editor. It may go as far as identifying actual text to delete
   from and providing new text to add to the master document.
 This format is intended as a rough guide to contributors of text.
 No doubt, each contributor will add, delete, and/or change this
 to fit the specific needs of his or her contribution.
 
--bill