From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 05 12:23:44 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnHrk-0006pJ-O3; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:23:44 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnHke-0001mz-Iq; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:16:24 -0400 Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnHkd-0008R4-65; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:16:24 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-71-131-66-59.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [71.131.66.59]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k55GGnOm005329 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Jun 2006 09:16:50 -0700 Message-ID: <448458D2.5010702@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:16:18 -0700 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf@ietf.org References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20060524142029.06ef7e40@vigilsec.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20060524144104.05718a70@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524144104.05718a70@vigilsec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: dhc2@dcrocker.net X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:23:43 -0400 Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org Russ Housley wrote: > Sam: > > If the people with copyright interest are the combination of the authors > plus the contributors, then we need to specify this in a BCP. > > Does the RFC Editor have to contact the members of both lists during > Auth48? If so, I would suggest that the RFf Editor only needs a > positive reply from the authors, but that the contributors only need to > respond if they discover a change that is needed. In looking over the various sub-threads on this topic, it is feeling an awful lot like the discussion is trying to attend to legal issues, without benefit of legal counsel. (I know that a number of the participants in the thread have been dealing with this topic, for a long time, including contact with legal counsel. My point is that the current discussion either ought to include direct contribution by an intellectual property attorney or we should largely drop the issue.) Wouldn't it make more sense for the rules concerning author list to be dictated by the combination of the needs to state primary resonsibility, ie, those writing the docs, and logistics/processing needs of those publishing it? d/ _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 05 14:20:26 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnJgd-0000HB-DT; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:20:23 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnJX6-0004HI-2x; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:10:32 -0400 Received: from chokecherry.srv.cs.cmu.edu ([128.2.185.41]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnJX4-0004vy-T1; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:10:32 -0400 Received: from sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu (SIRIUS.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.209.170]) (authenticated bits=0) by chokecherry.srv.cs.cmu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k55IAMJE007827 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:10:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:10:22 -0400 From: Jeffrey Hutzelman To: Dave Crocker , ietf@ietf.org Message-ID: <4EDCDA8FAF2CAA4C961CC08B@sirius.fac.cs.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <448458D2.5010702@dcrocker.net> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060524115045.06eb0a80@vigilsec.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20060524142029.06ef7e40@vigilsec.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20060524144104.05718a70@vigilsec.com> <448458D2.5010702@dcrocker.net> Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01oEe0bwqvKePskizw08Xk3je565oney0NvOLU1sc=; token_authority=postmaster@andrew.cmu.edu X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:20:23 -0400 Cc: Jeffrey Hutzelman , ipr-wg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Techspec] Re: RFC Author Count and IPR X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org On Monday, June 05, 2006 09:16:18 AM -0700 Dave Crocker wrote: > Wouldn't it make more sense for the rules concerning author list to be > dictated by the combination of the needs to state primary resonsibility, > ie, those writing the docs, and logistics/processing needs of those > publishing it? I certainly think it would. _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 12 13:16:18 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fpq1S-00022D-6p; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:16:18 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fpq1Q-000228-MG for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:16:16 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.193]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fpq1P-0005YM-Bl for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:16:16 -0400 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id q3so1264345nzb for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:16:15 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=googlemail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=SPuUwMBJ5aD/KsqgwzvGzLjHoAtRmMYGlCNd6+dO2czW3GAnM2IV5DtroHp3ZpMncgj9lZhVPuKQ0Q/SUDb0+zusWReS8DaXGfiWru9Sc7Cn90rs98D0jXLUlabKyNHz3YyTdoS343Y+qKS5RBYlFB+gv2jwbZ20b0mJiX0vCMc= Received: by 10.36.118.13 with SMTP id q13mr9083504nzc; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?81.187.254.247? ( [81.187.254.247]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 38sm9258042nza.2006.06.12.10.16.11; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <448DA205.6040807@googlemail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:19:01 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: techspec@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4 Subject: [Techspec] Additional comment on draft-mankin-pub-req-08 X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org I appreciate that the last call is strictly over, but one extra point came to mind when considering draft-iab-rfc-editor-00. The requirements in draft-mankin split into two parts: - Those that are specific to the IETF document 'stream' - most;y the 'front end' of the process - Those that apply mainly to the back end of the process and are relevant to any documents that are published by the RFC Editor For convenience when specifying requirements for IAB and IRTF documents etc it would be helpful if the two types of requirements were split into separate sections for easier cross referencing. I have suggested the sections in section 3 which appear to apply specifically to the IETF stream (marked S in the list below), whereas the others are generic (marked G). A small amount of swapping of section order would give the required result, I believe: S 1. Pre-approval review or editing G 2. Preliminary specification availability S 3. Post-approval editorial cleanup G 4. Validation of references G 5. Validation of formal languages G? 6. Insertion of parameter values S 7. Post approval, pre-publication corrections G 8. Allocation of permanent stable identifiers G 9. Document format conversions G 10.Language translation G 11.Publication status tracking S 12.Expedited handling G 13.Exception handling G 14.Notification of publication G 15.Post-publication corrections (errata) G 16.Indexing: maintenance of the catalog G 17.Access to published documents G 18.Maintenance of a vocabulary document G 19.Providing publication statistics and status reports G 20.Process and document evolution G? 21.Tutorial and help services I am not absolutely sure whether sections 6 and 21 are generic - the tutorual and help could be considered to be specific especially with respect to help desk provision at IETF meetings but it is applicable to all documents. Regards, Elwyn _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 12 14:41:15 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FprLf-0000ZC-16; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:41:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FprLe-0000Z4-5C; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:41:14 -0400 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FprLc-0005gy-RE; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:41:14 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1FprLc-000PDq-Dz; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:41:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:41:11 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Elwyn Davies , techspec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Techspec] Additional comment on draft-mankin-pub-req-08 Message-ID: <6BA11EBC3FD1D3F28CD6570A@p3.JCK.COM> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.4 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Cc: iesg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org (resending a slightly modified version from the correct address -- sorry) --On Monday, 12 June, 2006 18:19 +0100 Elwyn Davies wrote: > I appreciate that the last call is strictly over, but one > extra point came to mind when considering > draft-iab-rfc-editor-00. > > The requirements in draft-mankin split into two parts: > - Those that are specific to the IETF document 'stream' - > most;y the 'front end' of the process > - Those that apply mainly to the back end of the process and > are relevant to any documents that are published by the RFC > Editor > > For convenience when specifying requirements for IAB and IRTF > documents etc it would be helpful if the two types of > requirements were split into separate sections for easier > cross referencing. Elwyn, This is, of course, one of the meta-problems with the document that several of us have tried to point out in different ways. The community has been repeatedly assured that it applies _only_ to the IETF document stream. If that is true, then the material you describe as "generic" is advisory at best. At worst, it needs separate evaluation via other processes. If it is not true, then the document needs an entirely different type of review and the IESG may not be an appropriate body to manage that review. Of course, those comments don't make your suggestion about reorganizing the document and clearly identifying applicability any less useful. john _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jun 12 17:57:50 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FpuPu-00084B-Rn; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:57:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FpuPt-000841-An for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:57:49 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.193]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FpuPr-0006zP-W8 for techspec@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:57:49 -0400 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so1320040nzc for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:57:47 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=googlemail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=e/fJktgzDTfSMJGRF/H/N41XQdu3NZVmp1rUsOBhsMTcFsFAXqIMPXZoTDRJDLSD8CV2roYHZGWKOVU5gyZxEuEPeHIAlcIcZqjHfDkSdtEDkHV1Tu2eIPVXYAbwAB0Y7M88MxU5YT7b+yIK7MEdz3Yjo6LeDY2tMDsrtKgVK/A= Received: by 10.37.15.20 with SMTP id s20mr7994040nzi; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?81.187.254.247? ( [81.187.254.247]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 34sm9751377nza.2006.06.12.14.57.46; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <448DE3F7.6000101@googlemail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:00:23 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John C Klensin Subject: Re: [Techspec] Additional comment on draft-mankin-pub-req-08 References: <6BA11EBC3FD1D3F28CD6570A@p3.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <6BA11EBC3FD1D3F28CD6570A@p3.JCK.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Cc: iesg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org John C Klensin wrote: > (resending a slightly modified version from the correct address > -- sorry) > > --On Monday, 12 June, 2006 18:19 +0100 Elwyn Davies > wrote: > > >> I appreciate that the last call is strictly over, but one >> extra point came to mind when considering >> draft-iab-rfc-editor-00. >> >> The requirements in draft-mankin split into two parts: >> - Those that are specific to the IETF document 'stream' - >> most;y the 'front end' of the process >> - Those that apply mainly to the back end of the process and >> are relevant to any documents that are published by the RFC >> Editor >> >> For convenience when specifying requirements for IAB and IRTF >> documents etc it would be helpful if the two types of >> requirements were split into separate sections for easier >> cross referencing. >> > > Elwyn, > > This is, of course, one of the meta-problems with the document > that several of us have tried to point out in different ways. > The community has been repeatedly assured that it applies _only_ > to the IETF document stream. If that is true, then the material > you describe as "generic" is advisory at best. At worst, it > needs separate evaluation via other processes. > Indeed. Any use of these requirements by another document stream than the IETF one is entirely a matter for the specifiers of that stream. We probably have four different streams and the 'generic' stuff would not, AFAICS, be contentious for the IRTF and IAB streams - they currently take essentially the same post-approval path as the IETF stream. The main object of this exercise was to make it easier to write any additional requirements for the IRTF and IAB streams without having to duplicate things unnecessarily. /Elwyn > If it is not true, then the document needs an entirely different > type of review and the IESG may not be an appropriate body to > manage that review. > > Of course, those comments don't make your suggestion about > reorganizing the document and clearly identifying applicability > any less useful. > > john > > > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec From techspec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jun 14 05:11:41 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqRPZ-0003jN-Dv; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 05:11:41 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqRPY-0003iw-0Y; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 05:11:40 -0400 Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqRPW-0008RE-GK; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 05:11:39 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.1]) by mtagate2.de.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5E9BaGh048548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:11:37 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1507.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k5E9DjBs067266 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:13:45 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k5E9BZ5r008135; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:11:35 +0200 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5E9BYOl008130; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:11:34 +0200 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-216-165.de.ibm.com [9.146.216.165]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA57338; Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:11:32 +0200 Message-ID: <448FD2C0.1090709@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:11:28 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John C Klensin Subject: Re: [Techspec] Additional comment on draft-mankin-pub-req-08 References: <6BA11EBC3FD1D3F28CD6570A@p3.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <6BA11EBC3FD1D3F28CD6570A@p3.JCK.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c Cc: iesg@ietf.org, techspec@ietf.org X-BeenThere: techspec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion list for IETF Technical Specifications \(BOF at IETF64\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: techspec-bounces@ietf.org I think this is a positioning matter. This draft is indeed an IETF work product and talks about IETF requirements. Whether the other publication streams identified in draft-iab-rfc-editor choose to adopt these requirements is their business. As Elwyn said (just before leaving on vacation, btw) the document *could* be reorganised to suggest which are generic and which are IETF-specific. But as long as it's an IETF document, that could only be a suggestion. Given the timeline we're working to, I personally wouldn't recommend major surgery on the document for that purpose. Brian John C Klensin wrote: > (resending a slightly modified version from the correct address > -- sorry) > > --On Monday, 12 June, 2006 18:19 +0100 Elwyn Davies > wrote: > > >>I appreciate that the last call is strictly over, but one >>extra point came to mind when considering >>draft-iab-rfc-editor-00. >> >>The requirements in draft-mankin split into two parts: >>- Those that are specific to the IETF document 'stream' - >>most;y the 'front end' of the process >>- Those that apply mainly to the back end of the process and >>are relevant to any documents that are published by the RFC >>Editor >> >>For convenience when specifying requirements for IAB and IRTF >>documents etc it would be helpful if the two types of >>requirements were split into separate sections for easier >>cross referencing. > > > Elwyn, > > This is, of course, one of the meta-problems with the document > that several of us have tried to point out in different ways. > The community has been repeatedly assured that it applies _only_ > to the IETF document stream. If that is true, then the material > you describe as "generic" is advisory at best. At worst, it > needs separate evaluation via other processes. > > If it is not true, then the document needs an entirely different > type of review and the IESG may not be an appropriate body to > manage that review. > > Of course, those comments don't make your suggestion about > reorganizing the document and clearly identifying applicability > any less useful. > > john > > > _______________________________________________ > Techspec mailing list > Techspec@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec > > _______________________________________________ Techspec mailing list Techspec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec