13.01.2011 13:28, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
The reviewer furthermore states, following the rules in
RFC4395 the document should provide concrete contact information for
the
editor instead of an anonymous email address only.
That would be corrected so that the author will be IETF and contact -
IESG.
I am not really sure whether this is appropriate.
Why are you keen of keeping it more or less anonymous?
Mehmet, all,
Mentioning my full contact data makes no sense. I can hardly imagine
that somebody will come to Ukraine, search Kotovsk (that is rather small
town) and than particular street, etc. to ask me about the URI scheme.
Those who want that would prefer to contact me by email.
And nevertheless I'd like the registration template shall contain IETF
as author and IESG as contact. That is rather usual for IETF-stream RFCs.
All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Cheers,
Mehmet
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Mykyta Yevstifeyev [mailto:evnikita2(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:58 AM
To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Fwd: [OPS-DIR] OPS-DIR Review of
draft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-
uri-12
12.01.2011 14:19, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ops-dir-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ops-dir-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of ext Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:07 PM
To: ops-dir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: draft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-uri-authors(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [OPS-DIR] OPS-DIR Review of draft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-uri-12
I reviewed draft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-uri-12 for its operational
impacts..
Summary:
The document gives a specification of syntax, semantics and use of
'tn3270' URI scheme.
Obviously this is an individual submission without any document
write-up
and supporting AD.
Why without? Peter Saint-Andre is sponsoring AD.
I would like to read a document write-up with the regular template
even
if it is written by the author.
The main purpose of the document, namely to update the IANA
registration
of tn3270 URI scheme using the given registration template, should
be
added to the Introduction section. In general I would suggest to
include
in the Introduction section the purpose of the action and more
importantly why existing IANA registrations are not sufficient and
why
the publication of this RFC is needed.
Agreed. I'll add that as soon as possible.
Obviously the GEN-Area reviewer (Tom Petch) has an opposite opinion
and
does not see this IANA registration in the interest of IETF (see
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=55119&tid=12
9
4831574). The reviewer furthermore states, following the rules in
RFC4395 the document should provide concrete contact information for
the
editor instead of an anonymous email address only.
That would be corrected so that the author will be IETF and contact -
IESG.
I don't see any additional operation impact other than above.
Other issues:
- The used language needs some polishing.
- Following are draft nits suggesting correction:
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line
does
not
match the current year
-> Use new template or: s/2010/2011/
Will be corrected.
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1738
(Obsoleted by RFC 4248, RFC 4266)
-> Use correct reference or clarify.
Obsolete Informational references are allowed. I don't see a problem
here.
Mykyta
Mehmet
_______________________________________________
OPS-DIR mailing list
OPS-DIR(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf