Subject: Re: [appsdir] [dnsext] disposition of draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-05 (was: DNSEXT closing down soon)

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:30:39 -0800

Hi Murray,
At 12:34 11-01-2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>I was going to ship it as is as the product of the WG, but your remark
>made me realise that there's a bureaucratic snafu that results in that
>case.  So it'll have to get a name change.  Sigh.  I'll get Donald to
>submit it with the changed name, but it will otherwise be exactly the
>same as passed WGLC.

I'll wait for the WGLC to start before I assigning this review.  I 
generally look at whether there is some WG discussion as our task is 
cross-area review and not a substitute for WG participation.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:06:20 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:31 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Andrew Sullivan
> Subject: Re: [appsdir] [dnsext] disposition of draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-05 (was: DNSEXT closing down soon)
> 
> Hi Murray,

My read of the archive is that they did a WGLC on it, but forgot the step of making it a WG item by name before doing so, so that's effectively been done already.

Andrew, can you confirm?

-MSK

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:33:05 -0500

The wg lc is over some time ago. 

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumsy thumbs. 

On 2012-01-11, at 20:30, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'll wait for the WGLC to start before I assigning this review.  I generally look at whether there is some WG discussion as our task is cross-area review and not a substitute for WG participation.
> 
> Best regards,
> -sm

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:37:53 -0500

> My read of the archive is that they did a WGLC on it, but forgot the step of making it a WG item by name before doing so, so that's effectively been done already.

Yes, exactly right.  More exactly, we decided that we could skip the
step of renaming it, which is technically legit according to the
relevant RFCs but which causes all manner of trouble with the tools,
so we've decided to rename.  I believe the file will be out today &
I'll be sending the pub request to Ralph immediately thereafter.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]