Subject: Re: Draft v.4

From: [email-masked] (Lawrence Conroy)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:38:09 -0600

At 9:42 pm 14/3/99, Chip Sharp wrote:
>I'm concerned that many of the drafts that are being submitted to this list
>have not been submitted as an I-D even though they seem to have I-D like file
>names in their header.
>
>I'm also concerned that many of them, including the draft mentioned here, do
>not have the required boilerplate text for an I-D, including the required
>reference to Section 10 of RFC2026.
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>Chip Sharp                 voice: +1 (919) 851-2085
>Cisco Systems              Consulting Eng. - Telco
>Reality - Love it or Leave it.
>--------------------------------------------------
To which I reply:

(i) Jim's SAINT draft seems to have fallen off the IETF list - Both Jim and
I were somewhat surprised at this, as it was issued to the IETF (we
thought) at the same time it was sent to the PINT list.

(ii) the PINT draft not being on the IETF list - hmm...my fault - It JUST
missed the IETF deadline. I will, of course, submit it as soon as the IETF
is over and the block on Draft release is clear.

(iii) Boilerplate (including the ref to RFC 2066). Again, my fault. I will
include it before issue to the IETF (so it WAS no bad thing that it missed
the deadline :).

Thanks for reading the draft and making these comments.

All the best, Lawrence
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Lawrence Conroy,    | "These Opinions must be mine, 'cos if they    |
| Roke Manor Research |  were my Company's they'd charge you for them"|
|- [email-masked]  ---+- Tel: +44 1794 833666  Fax: +44 1794 833434 --|

---------
This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List.