• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: mile

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2012-07-19 00:26 (System)

RFC published

2012-06-14 14:02 Cindy Morgan

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2012-06-13 10:27 (System)

IANA Action state changed to No IC

2012-06-13 09:41 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

2012-06-13 09:41 Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2012-06-13 09:41 Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2012-06-13 09:40 Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

2012-06-13 09:40 Amy Vezza

Ballot writeup was changed

2012-06-13 08:55 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

2012-06-11 11:23 Robert Sparks

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-06-08 09:27 Benoit Claise

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS/COMMENT

2012-06-08 09:27 Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-06-08 04:41 (System)

Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed

2012-06-08 04:41 Brian Trammell

New revision available

2012-06-07 11:19 Cindy Morgan

State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation

2012-06-06 19:02 Pete Resnick

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick

2012-06-06 03:36 Gonzalo Camarillo

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo

2012-06-05 15:06 Robert Sparks

[Ballot discuss]
In a Last-Call discussion, the author agreed with a comment made by Peter Saint-Andre that the reference to RFC6545 should be informational, but that change has not yet been made.

It should be made more obvious that the examples in Appendix B are examples, and not actual registrations. Using a real protocol for the example is hazardous. Could you replace the first example (ENUM) with something clearly not real? (btw, RFC6116 defines e164.arpa.)

Can you provide a reference into the existing IODEF specifications for where the kind of extension discussed in item 3 of section 3 is anticipated?

2012-06-05 15:06 Robert Sparks

[Ballot comment]
Peter's Last-Call comments also included some editorial suggestions. I would like to amplify his first comment on being very clear when the use of these templates (and the guidance around the selection of a namespace value) are appropriate.

2012-06-05 15:06 Robert Sparks

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Robert Sparks

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.