RE: agenda items for 59th IETF

Actually, despite the impression that the focus of attention has been on
FLUTE instead of NORM, they are pretty much in the same state at this point,
i.e., FLUTE and NORM have both successfully passed RMT working group last
call.  I don't know beyond this where NORM is at, but FLUTE has already been
reviewed by the IESG and the IESG comments on FLUTE are being addressed as I
write this as FLUTE moves towards RFC status.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rmt-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:rmt-admin <at> ietf.org]On Behalf Of Lorenzo
> Vicisano
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:53 PM
> To: Andrew Marlow
> Cc: rmt <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Rmt] agenda items for 59th IETF
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> > Yes, what's the status of the reference implementation please?
>
> Although most of the RMT specs are implemented in some
> publicly available piece of software, generally speaking
> we have no official "reference implementations".
>
> I believe that the closest we come to this is in NORM
> (http://norm.pf.itd.nrl.navy.mil/)
>
> In the past a number of people have posted pointers
> to their implementations, I'm thinking that it would
> be useful to compile a list of them.. I'll start a separate
> thread for this.
>
> Depending on the result of this poll we can consider
> including presentation of the results in the meeting agenda.
>
> > Also I just want to point out that most of the recent attention
> > seems to have been focused on flute rather than norm.
> > Does this mean the norm spec is complete?
>
> yes: the norm BB and PI specs have been submitted to the IESG for
> publication and are currently in IETF "last call".
>
> 	thanks,
> 	Lorenzo
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Andrew Marlow
> > ----
> > There is an emerald here the size of a plover's egg!
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> Rmt <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
>