Andrew McDonald wrote:
> Hi Damian,
> I'm not familar with what is going on in the LTANS working group
> myself. However, the fact that it is in the security area would suggest
> a particular slant to the work.
Indeed - Section 10 para 4 and 11 (last para) of LTAP I-D not RFC4810
discusses redundancy - it this area that DIAP may be in a position to
expand. I have just finished the initial brief.
> If you want to move it towards being an RFC:
> Are you intending to try to do this through the LTANS working group?
Not thought of this.
> Or, are you aiming for an Informational RFC via the
> independent submission route?
My first thought.
Or, is there a general demand for this
> work from other people, so that chartering new work in the IETF would
> be appropriate?
There is demand both perceived and explicitly requested.
> I terms of writing an I-D, you ought to be familiar with the IETF 'note
> well' (and hence BCP78 and BCP79). Also, having written drafts in Word,
> LaTeX, nroff and xml2rfc, the latter is definitely the preferred option
> (since it gets the boilerplate right, will do a table of contents,
> cross references, etc.)
This is very handy to know.
> Seeing that you're at soton.ac.uk, I think Tim Chown is the sole
> remaining IETFer there, since most of the IPv6 crowd seem to have gone.
>
Will corner at some point.
Thank you very much for your response.
DB
--
Damian Brasher
www.interlinux.co.uk
All mail scanned by clam-av
http://www.clamav.net/
