• 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 :: trill

Current state: Submitted to IESG for Publication

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2012-07-10 12:45 (System)

IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor

2012-07-09 22:49 (System)

IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress

2012-07-09 20:03 (System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors

2012-07-09 15:00 (System)

IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress

2012-06-27 13:52 (System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress

2012-06-27 11:49 Cindy Morgan

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2012-06-27 08:29 Amy Vezza

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

2012-06-27 08:29 Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2012-06-27 08:29 Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2012-06-27 08:28 Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

2012-06-27 08:28 Amy Vezza

Ballot writeup was changed

2012-06-27 08:27 Amy Vezza

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

2012-06-20 14:37 Barry Leiba

[Ballot comment]
[*** This was addressed in the -05 version; thanks. ***]

-- 5 --
Please explain (briefly -- a sentence or two will surely do) the reason for selecting Standards Action for this registry. I'd prefer it if that sentence or two were in the IANA Considerations, unless there's a reason not to put it there.

I understand that there is a limited number of bits to be given out, so freely allocating them for the asking would be harmful. Still, Standards Action is very heavyweight: did you consider IETF Review (which could allow Informational or Experimental documents to do allocations, with community consensus and IESG approval), or even Specification Required (where you could give instructions that the designated expert exert tight control over the allocations)?

[5 June, Don responds]
> On consideration, I think you are correct that Standards Action is too
> heavyweight. However, I also think that Specification Required would
> be too lightweight considering the small number of bits available and
> the fact that a few of them are already proposed for allocation in
> existing various drafts...
>
> I will check with the co-authors & WG to see if there is any objection
> to changing to IETF Review.

2012-06-20 14:37 Barry Leiba

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-06-20 14:23 (System)

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

2012-06-20 14:23 Donald Eastlake

New revision available

2012-06-20 13:44 Ron Bonica

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Ronald Bonica has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-06-20 08:03 Barry Leiba

[Ballot discuss]
[Updated on 20 June]

-- 5 --
Please explain (briefly -- a sentence or two will surely do) the reason for selecting Standards Action for this registry.  I'd prefer it if that sentence or two were in the IANA Considerations, unless there's a reason not to put it there.

I understand that there is a limited number of bits to be given out, so freely allocating them for the asking would be harmful.  Still, Standards Action is very heavyweight: did you consider IETF Review (which could allow Informational or Experimental documents to do allocations, with community consensus and IESG approval), or even Specification Required (where you could give instructions that the designated expert exert tight control over the allocations)?

[5 June, Don responds]
> On consideration, I think you are correct that Standards Action is too
> heavyweight. However, I also think that Specification Required would
> be too lightweight considering the small number of bits available and
> the fact that a few of them are already proposed for allocation in
> existing various drafts...
>
> I will check with the co-authors & WG to see if there is any objection
> to changing to IETF Review.

[20 June] Haven't heard further...

2012-06-20 08:03 Barry Leiba

Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Barry Leiba

2012-06-07 11:15 Cindy Morgan

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

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.