Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] "For Action"?
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 23 September 2010 15:52 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: tools-development@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-development@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE803A6A94 for <tools-development@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2IyakEPwosIv for <tools-development@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D593A6B11 for <tools-development@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB4B9A4782; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:53:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qizeTRevlKT7; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:52:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.102] (pool-96-231-149-87.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.231.149.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EFE19A4773; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:53:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4C9B77D1.8010105@vigilsec.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:52:49 -0400
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
References: <FE7BB2C0-FBC8-4E55-8F5C-2221B574A71A@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <FE7BB2C0-FBC8-4E55-8F5C-2221B574A71A@nokia.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "tools-development@ietf.org Development" <tools-development@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] "For Action"?
X-BeenThere: tools-development@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Development list server <tools-development.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-development>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-development@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development>, <mailto:tools-development-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:52:18 -0000
This happens is someone puts the document on the agenda but the state is not IESG Evaluation. Russ On 9/23/2010 4:17 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: > why is draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-chunk-flags-01 listed under 2.1.3, and what is 2.1.3 in any case? Shouldn't it simply be under 2.1?
- [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] "For Action"? Lars Eggert
- Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] "For Action"? Russ Housley
- Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] "For Action"? Lars Eggert