Subject: draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions-01.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:31:13 +0200

I'd like to ask for comment on draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions-01.txt.

The reason it was written in this particular form is that the IETF
has never really set down its procedures for how extensions to
IETF protocols should be handled, if they originate outside the
IETF. It's a practical problem that comes up quite frequently.

The draft intentionally doesn't talk about technical design aspects
of extensions - there is another draft on that topic in the works.

     Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:17:59 +0200

Brian,
I will look into it.
I would like to come back on my pet issue.
I would like we apply the usual netiquette when we refer to a draft 
and we post it as:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions-01.txt
I beg your support as a Chair to establish that practice.

Is there someone who thinks this would not save time to everyone and 
help the authors to get more comments?
jfc

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:14:21 +0200

JFC Morfin wrote:

> post it as:

I'm a fan of short URLs, and in that case you could also write:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions

The latter has now a link to the former.  Matter of taste, many
readers here probably have their own favourite repository, I'd
find it in a local directory  (five levels deep, two "test" and
one "misc" component in the path, I dare not fix this).

> help the authors to get more comments?

Maybe - with more than 78 characters per line you never know.

Frank