Subject: RE: FW: Last Call: EtherIP: Tunneling Ethernet Frames in IP Datag rams to Proposed Standard

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 09:51:06 +0100

At 08:10 08/01/2001 +0200, Dan Romascanu wrote:
>Thanks. Your explanation is detailed and clear. The original message should
>have probably said 'the IESG is requesting input from the IETF community'
>instead of 'this has been reviewed in the IETF'.  The way the message was
>written mis-lead me.

this phrase is often used when the document has been presented to an IETF 
working group, the working group thinks that it is a reasonably good (or at 
least not horribly bad) idea, but the working group does not wish to take 
it on as an action item, either because it's small enough and finished 
enough that adding WG processing would not add significant benefit, or 
because it's not within the scope of the WG charter (and for the same 
reasons as before, nobody thinks it's worthwhile to charter a new WG about it).

no, I don't know which WG looked at this either.

             Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]