Re: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-01
SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 05 December 2011 20:49 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68CD821F8BDB for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 12:49:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z9fAnfvV63vV for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 12:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCB821F8B00 for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 12:49:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.85]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pB5KnF7F021598; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 12:49:22 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1323118167; bh=cmkQJXERLxvyLK8PF0jjU1WArf4=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=HbMP1HrydIeBxSTB8T/X5MX8ZvmyplrpXqWjNNgR6bj9IFmuUZUfmKjXUkuyoaigO DJ1z6/y0UPPL58IfwTGgEQPrw6UqukO0mKsvLBpxz50P+GCF7kwyq5EOfrqBRKKO03 n5Q+DUAeZEkjnw6MSzGW13FcsUsKTgQEoSldkQ7Y=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111205123103.0938e248@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:48:28 -0800
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
From: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EDD28D1.702@gmx.de>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111203124711.09cdbec0@elandnews.com> <4EDD28D1.702@gmx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: apps-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-01
X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Apps Area Review List <apps-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review>, <mailto:apps-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 20:49:31 -0000
Hi Julian, At 12:25 05-12-2011, Julian Reschke wrote: >I just had a look, and the draft indeed is a very small update over RFC 6046. RFC 6046 is Informational. >It this was new, I would have a few comments on how it uses HTTP, >but given the fact it already has been accepted as Proposed, this >seems pointless. > >Do we need a more formal review than that? The intended status of draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-01 is Proposed Standard. A formal review is helpful as it is provides the point of view of somebody with HTTP expertise. It's also less work for the Apps ADs. :-) Best regards, -sm