Hi Roni, thanks for your comments.
Two things in reply:
First, this is not an Informational document, it's Standards Track. I don't
know if that changes anything in your review, however.
Second, Section 1 does describe the change being made between RFC3462 and this
document, and the rationale for doing so. Was there some detail missing from
there that was in the Appendix that you feel should be added?
Thanks,
-MSK
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Roni Even
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 6:31 AM
To: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-10-1
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-10
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
I noticed that the major change from RFC 3462 in the current version is to
remove requirement that multipart/report not be contained in anything. The
changes appear in appendix B which is to be removed in the published document.
I think that it will be better to have the change from RFC 3462 be part of the
main text and also discuss what are the backward interoperability issues if any.
Nits/editorial comments:
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf