To:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>
cc:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:46:35 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Thu, 09 Aug 2001 11:35:29 EDT." <v03130305b7985d40e96d@[217.33.137.162]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: WG Discussion Summary with Draft Document Impact
> At 6:46 AM -0400 8/9/01, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > >existed. Even in their most current review, the IESG did not provide any > >comments suggesting more generalization. > > > >If anyone wants a more generalized requirements draft, I suggest writing > >another draft. > > I agree. The IESG has already commented once and gave us specific > comments. This doesn't mean that the IESG won't send back more comments, > but let's not try to draw them out. (At the same time, we don't want to > try to sneak anything past 'em.) OK. Eric