At 07:53 29-02-2012, Vincent Roca wrote:
I didn't see you initial email (I'm not not on the ietf@xxxxxxxx
mailing list), which explains why you didn't receive any feedback.
That explains why the authors did not respond to the comments. It
does not explain why the working group asked the IETF Community to
review the draft. Or is the working group using ietf@ as a
unidirectional transport? :-)
From the Introduction Section:
"This document defines FLUTE version 2, a protocol for unidirectional
delivery of files over the Internet. This specification is not
backwards compatible with the previous experimental version defined
in [RFC3926]"
The Write-up mentions that this draft represents the solid consensus
of the working group. It also mentions that "The document is of high
quality and has been subject to extensive review in its Internet
Draft and Experimental RFC forms. The revised draft represents a
modest set of changes from the original Experimental RFC 3926. These
changes are clearly described in the document". This "modest set of
changes" affects the IPR status of the document. The question which
one might ask is why do a modest set of changes then.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf