> -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 6:23 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; General Area Review Team > Cc: Alexey Melnikov; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-02 > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team > (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, > please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD > before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-02 > Reviewer: Ben Campbell > Review Date: 13 July 2009 > IESG Telechat date: 16 July 2009 > > Summary: > > The draft is ready for publication. However, I have a couple > of minor comments about the implementation report at > http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFCs3730-3734_implem.txt > that may relate to the progression to draft standard. > > (I apologize for not making these comments sooner--this is > the first progression to draft that I have reviewed, and only > recently had thoughts on the implementation report.) > > Major issues: > > None. > > Minor issues: > > > 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- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf