-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben(_at_)estacado(_dot_)net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:19 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: General Area Review Team; Alexey Melnikov; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-02
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?
Yes, I believe that the report is still applicable and that all
requirements for progression have been met.
-Scott-
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf