To:
"James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
Cc:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>
Date:
Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:30:34 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<038501c08ec3$4324b560$aa2bd63f@jamessonyvaio>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Interim Meeting
At 10:58 AM -0500 2/4/01, James Seng/Personal wrote: >But the facts remains that a lot of registries have not read your I-D. >So the question is "Are you interested in their feedback?" or "Are you >more interested to follow process and get your I-D thru?" Once the WG is formed, I plan to wait at least two weeks after we are official before issueing a WG last call - which lasts two weeks itself. (For folks worried about delays, there is no need for the requirements document to be "official" before progress on the protocol can be made.) As far as getting registries and registrars involved, this is not *just* an IETF or provreg responsibility. I am making sure we make every effort to be as open as possible about the activities as we can be. I am also trying to get as many folks aware of this work as I can. If anyone is afraid that there is an entity that should be involved in provreg, but is not paying attention to provreg, there are two things you can do. One is to contact that entity and tell them of provreg. The other is to bring it to my attention and I'll see if I can get a message to the entity. PS - Regarding "getting feedback" versus "getting the ID thru", please look in the archives for the thread "Draft provreg charter", starting "Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:28:34 -0800." We've hashed this issue a couple of times already. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NAI Labs Phone: +1 443-259-2352 Email: lewis@tislabs.com Dilbert is an optimist. Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.