Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-26 started

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

At 09:51 PM 2/7/2011, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>James,
>
>The intended status of the document is INFORMATIONAL not PS.


%*(&^%^%, *$%*&%.... and %^*&%*&^

grrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!

I messed up obviously.

That ought to teach me *not* to cut and paste (from the stream reset 
WGLC) without verifying.

grrrrrrrrrrrr!!

I apologize for the boneheaded mistake.

I own it.

This doc is INFORMATIONAL.

err, thanks Brian for pointing this out so quickly.

James
with my chair hat on (covering my face in embarrassment!)


>Was that just a typo?
>
>If not, my first comment is that any RFC issued for C-language
>APIs must be INFORMATIONAL and not PS.
>
>--brian
>
>James M. Polk wrote:                         (Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:10:53)
> > TSVWG
> >
> > I am starting the WGLC for
> >
> > "Sockets API Extensions for Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)"
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket/
> >
> > this is a 2 week WGLC, ending February 22nd, 2011 or when the chairs
> > feel the WG has reviewed the draft and reached consensus to progress
> > towards the ADs with the goal of becoming a proposed standard (PS) RFC.
> >
> > The chairs require substantive feedback from the WG regarding this draft
> > before consensus can be called.
> >
> > I will be the document shepherd.
> >
> > James
> > TSVWG chair
> >
>
>--
>Brian F. G. Bidulock
>[e-mail]
>http://www.openss7.org/