Re: Authors on draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-01

Rod,

I suspect that it is fine to go ahead with the current number of
authors, but I'll let Allison comment..

	Lorenzo

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:32:20AM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo, Mark, All
> 
> Do you think the number of authors on LCT revised will be an issue in
> IESG or RFC Editor stages? (There are 7 and the general guidance is up
> to 5).
> 
> Partly because of the wide ranging contributions and partly because of
> the editorial issues of our building block and two stage RFC process,
> it's probably guaranteed that RMT documents need more authors than the
> average RFC. I think keeping a proper author list is the right approach
> rather than enforcing a 5 limit which probably did not take into account
> the methodology used in RMT. So IMHO the LCT author list is good as is.
> <Though a contributors list is also needed for the lesser
> contributions>.
> 
> It's worth at least seeing of Allison and Jon have an opinion.
> 
> Cheers, Rod.
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> >Behalf Of ext Lorenzo Vicisano
> >Sent: 17 February, 2006 20:32
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: [Rmt] any outstanding issue with 
> >draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-03 ?
> >
> >the previus version of this went through WG last-call, then 
> >the following happened:
> >
> >  - discussion on the requirements to instantiate new FEC IDs -> due
> >    to lack of consensus I proposed to maintain the current
> >    requirement (IETF Consensus)
> >
> >  - Minor updates where needed following the Vancouver IETF meeting
> >    (these are included in -03, I believe).
> >
> >does anybody see any reason to hold this back ?
> >
> >If I don't hear anything by 2/27 I'll ask Allison to submit 
> >this to the IESG.
> >
> >	thanks,
> >	Lorenzo
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Rmt mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
> >