On Jul 14, 2009, at 6:07 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
I have a a couple comments about the implementation report. I
do not necessarily consider them blocking issues; I bring
them up merely for consideration.
-- The implementation report refers to RFC and draft versions
that are (at least) a couple of generations old. I assume
that the authors believe that they also apply to this draft,
but it would be good to have an explicit assertion of that.
-- It would help to have an explicit assertion whether the
report author believes the standard meets the requirements to
progress to draft. I think the report implies a "yes", but it
leaves the reader to draw that conclusion.
4933bis is a candidate for progression to Standard, not Draft
Standard,
as 4933 is already a Draft Standard. The implementation report was
written as part of the effort to publish 3733bis (which became 4933 in
May 2007) as a Draft Standard. That's why things appear dated.
-Scott-
Oops, sorry, I got confused on that point since the 01 review.
Am I correct in assuming that you, as the author of the implementation
report, believe that the it is still applicable to 4933bis, and that
it meets the requirements for _full_ standard?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf