Personal tools
You are here: Home → communicationRecord → rfc2188OnStdTrack → Putting ESRO (RFC-2188) on the IETF standards track
Navigation
Log in


Forgot your password?
 

Putting ESRO (RFC-2188) on the IETF standards track

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Putting ESRO (RFC-2188) on the IETF standards track


Scott,

Last August (1997) during the process of the publication
of ESRO (Efficient Short Remote Operations) as an
Informational RFC, people at the IESG suggested that the
ESRO specification represents a significant technical
contribution and it should be advanced on the IETF
standards track.

>>>>> On Thu, 7 Aug 1997 15:43:37 -0400 (EDT), Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> said:

  Scott> I have exchanged mail with the ex transport co-AD about this ID.  She feels
  Scott> that this ID represents a significant technical contribution and feels that
  Scott> it should be advanced on the IETF standards track.

  Scott> ...

I have attached the entire message which suggested that
to this note.

Last year, the ESRO RFC authors chose to first publish
the spec. as an informational RFC without any further
delays. 

At that time I mentioned that I am interested in putting
the spec. on the standards track after publishing the
specification of an application protocol that uses ESRO. 

The Efficient Mail Submission and Delivery (EMSD)
protocol which uses ESRO to accomplish real efficient
IP-based two-way paging style email has now been published.
That spec. is available through:
  http://www.emsd.org/dataCom/emsd/emsdRfcs/emsdp-rfc/emsdp.tty

The EMSD Protocol Spec. has already been submitted to the
RFC Editor for publication as an Informational RFC.

http://www.emsd.org also includes a *LOT* of information about ESRO.

Now that an example of a protocol that uses ESRO is in
place, I want to get started on putting the ESRO spec. on
the IETF standards track as you suggested.

We can go about this two ways.

  1) I submit an updated version of ESRO spec. which
     includes the comments that we received and
     additional experience that was gained as a result of
     using the protocol and you put it for a Last Call as
     a Proposed Standard.

  2) We form a Working Group for this. I am willing to
     host the mailing list and the archive. In fact that
     is already in place at <esro-spec@emsd.org>. I am
     also willing to function as the editor of the WG and
     the interim chair.

Either way is fine with me and I will co-operate with you
fully in moving ESRO forward on the IETF standards track.

>From my perspective, putting ESRO on the standards track
now offers the benefits of co-ordination with other IETF
specs.  For example, does TIP over ESRO makes sense?
Should Congestion Notifications from the network layer be
used in ESRO, ....


I am assuming/hoping that your offer of being "the IESG
shepard" is still valid.

  Scott> ....  I'm quite willing to be the IESG shepard for the ID if
  Scott> you are interested in proceeding to a last call.

Even-though I believe that the process should not require
a "shepard".


Please let me know how you want to move forward on this.

Regards,

--
        Mohsen Banan
        President
        Neda Communications, Inc.               tel: +1-425-644-8026
        17005 S.E. 31st Place                   fax: +1-425-562-9591
        Bellevue, Wa 98008                      E-Mail: mohsen@neda.com
            U.S.A.                              URL: http://www.neda.com/


----------
From: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, JBCheng@attws-hq1.nwest.attws.com,
        mohsen@neda.com, mtaylor@teledesic.com, pean@neda.com
Cc: allyn@eng.sun.com
Subject: ESRO ID
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 15:43:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199708071943.PAA11036@newdev.harvard.edu>

I have exchanged mail with the ex transport co-AD about this ID.  She feels
that this ID represents a significant technical contribution and feels that
it should be advanced on the IETF standards track.

The normal way to do that with a non-working group document is to issue
a 4 week last-call to the general IETF community announcing the intention
of the IESG to evaluate the ID as a Proposed Standard and asking for 
comments.  After the end of that last-call period the IESG would
evaluate the responses and proceed.

If this is valuable technology then it would be a shame to miss
the chance to get it on the standards track by a quick publication as 
an informational RFC (yes we could publish it as an info then do the
last call but that would be unusual and potentially confusing later
on when the RFC is referred to)

So - I'd like the authors of the ID to let me know how you would like
to proceed.  I'm quite willing to be the IESG shepard for the ID if
you are interested in proceeding to a last call.

Scott
Main Index | Thread Index
Document Actions