[rfc-i] Future interaction of the Datatracker and the RFC Editor's tracker

[Paul Hoffman]

At 9:04 PM -0400 6/28/10, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>I do not see how the I, ISR, ISR-AUTH, and TO states are covered by the IETF datatracker.

They are not. They are covered in the update discussed in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker>.

>If they are covered, they are covered somewhere I have not seen.  The ISR, ISR-AUTH, and TO states are states that should be entered by the ISE.  As far as I know, the ISE does not update the IETF datatracker, so I do not see how those states can be duplicated in there.  (You even say that these states are created by separate people.)

Quite true. As I said in my message, the drafts I listed are still being considered in the IETF, and their recommendations will be implemented in the future.

>There has to be some way to record that the ISE has been formally asked to publish an I-D as an independent submission, and to track tohe progress of that.  WHere would that be in this proposal?

See above.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium