To:
"Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Cc:
<chris.newman@sun.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <iesg@ietf.org>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:15:10 -0400
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
In-Reply-To:
<2C2FCE28-832E-4DA8-A5D2-4156A38041CE@osafoundation.org>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Thread-Index:
AckrC54Cg8Jd1TiEQfaHPsGv2PzsOAACNn4w
Thread-Topic:
Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs
Subject:
[ietf-provreg] RE: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs
Thanks for confirming, Lisa. List archives are here: http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/ I'm not aware of any reported issues in the archive and I haven't received any privately. -Scott- > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@osafoundation.org] > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 3:09 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: chris.newman@sun.com; ietf-provreg@cafax.se; iesg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs > > Yes, I've received this message. I haven't had a chance to > consult with Chris yet about who would take them -- it was > Ted who sponsored them all last. > > Do you also know that there have been no new major problems > found in the deployments that were part of qualifying for > Draft Standard? > > thanks, > lisa > > On Oct 10, 2008, at 5:34 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > > Could someone from the IESG please ack receipt of the message below? > > > > -Scott- > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Hollenbeck, Scott > >> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 8:43 AM > >> To: lisa@osafoundation.org; chris.newman@sun.com > >> Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; iesg@ietf.org; Hollenbeck, Scott > >> Subject: Standards Track Advancement Request for EPP RFCs > >> > >> The EPP RFC documents (RFCs 4930, 4931, 4932, 4933, and 4934) were > >> published as Draft Standards in May 2007. I am asking the IESG to > >> review these documents for advancement to "Standard" status as > >> described in sections 6.1 and 6.2 of RFC 2026. There are > no entries > >> in the RFC Editor errata database for any of these RFCs. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Scott Hollenbeck > >