> Delivery-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:53:40 -0700
> Return-Path: joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com
> From: "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
> To: "'Joe Touch'" <touch@ISI.EDU>
> Cc: "'John Dilley'" <jad@pimlico.hpl.hp.com>, wrec@cs.utk.edu
> Subject: RE: 45th IETF WREC WG minutes
> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:51:32 -0700
>
> I agree with the points you mention as necessary as part
> of the normal process for a standards track document.
> There are server side implementations (plural) as well
> as a single client at this point.
>
> As for a protocol review, as well as group modifications
> and forward progress, I would welcome it, as I'm sure
> the other authors would as well.
>
> I wasn't specifically asking for the group to take a specific
> action which isnt in the charter. I was just suggesting that
> the draft is standards track, as opposed to informational.
For a draft to be standards track, doesn't it have to be
the output of an IETF WG, rather than the result of an
independent group?
Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST