Subject: FW: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-12.txt

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 16:26:41 +0100

Michelle and Barry,

Thanks for resurrecting this document. It's been a while and IIRC the document
was somewhere in the IESG process post IETF last call. You seem to have made
some pretty substantial changes: I wonder if you could post a summary. I also
wonder whether the Shepherding AD could let us know whether this will come back
for a further IETF last call (I can relax and read it later) or plans to go for
approval with only IESG sign-off (I need to read it urgently and scream if there
are issues).

FWIW, I noticed that section 1.2 now has some text in double square brackets
that seeks to (temporarily?) describe what material should go on the first
version of https://iana.org/help/protocol-registration. Can I suggest that you
make the RFC-to-be stable and future-proof by converting this to a description
of a minimal subset of information that should be on the web page in the first
and all subsequent versions (i.e., information that should be on the page,
period) and then you can remove the brackets.

Thanks,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: I-D-Announce [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: 05 April 2016 14:32
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-12.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 12:42:02 -0400

> some pretty substantial changes: I wonder if you could post a summary.

That'd be really difficult at this point, though one way you can
discern what I've done is to look at the old IESG ballot.  I addressed
pretty much all the comments there, save a few that I disagreed with.
And there is, of course, the diff tool, which should mostly help.

> approval with only IESG sign-off (I need to read it urgently and scream if there

I've also asked Terry, who is now the sponsoring AD, to decide whether
a new IETF last call is needed.  It will certainly need a fresh IESG
ballot and a new telechat appearance at the least.  Whether the
changes are substantive enough to need a new last call is something
that I, myself, am of two minds on.

> period) and then you can remove the brackets.

Indeed; that is the intent.  I wanted to get the text out for review
and further processing while I work with Michelle on getting the
initial page populated and posted.

Barry