Ah, I reviewed version 8, which had an intended status of Historic. As I was nearing the end of the document, -09 was released. Instead of reading -09 all over again, I read the diffs between -08 and -09. Looks like the intended status was changed to Informational in -09, and this change, while it showed up in the diff, escaped me since I looked at the changes in the body of the I-D, not the headers.
I don't see a need to re-issue a Gen-ART review, unless others do, in which case I am happy to re-issue.
Cheers,
- vijay
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 8:52 PM Harlan Stenn <stenn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I thought we were going for Informational.
On 7/6/2020 10:18 AM, Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09
> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
> Review Date: 2020-07-06
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-06-15
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: This I-D is ready to be published as a Historical RFC.
>
> Major issues: 0
>
> Minor issues: 0
>
> Nits/editorial comments: 0
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>
--
Harlan Stenn <stenn@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
