> -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:19 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: General Area Review Team; Alexey Melnikov; ietf@xxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf