Re: rfc5081bis

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

Hi Nikos--

On 12/01/2009 04:31 PM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>  Due to some procedural issues [0] it is not possible to publish
> RFC5081bis as independent submission. My last draft it at [1]. I have
> tried to publish it as AD-sponsored but the area director refuses to
> publish it as informational. I see no reason to publish it again as
> experimental, thus I give up. Is any of you interested in adopting this
> document?

I don't know enough about the process in general or the history of this
specific draft to be able to push it forward, though i'm interested in
seeing it formalized.  Presumably, the way around the procedural issues
is to get the TLS WG to approve it, no?

Actually, it looks like 5081 was not a TLS WG RFC -- it shows up as a
"Network Working Group" RFC here, anyway:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5081

so now i guess i'm even more confused ;)  Can you explain?

Also, is there source for this draft?  Are you working on it in plain
text, or are you using the xml2rfc workflow?

Thanks for your work on this so far, Nikos!

        --dkg

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature