Re: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-01
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 05 December 2011 21:08 UTC
Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 AAA441F0C7C for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:08:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.545
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.946, 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 iheFWJXeIpF3 for <apps-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C21451F0C7A for <apps-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:08:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Dec 2011 21:08:50 -0000
Received: from p5DCCAB3D.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.171.61] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 05 Dec 2011 22:08:50 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18h17BnqRkhs2EdQMM2xw+5/hqNbxqxv/6g66YA6I cf+/8lHjg+R61j
Message-ID: <4EDD32DD.8010400@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:08:45 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111203124711.09cdbec0@elandnews.com> <4EDD28D1.702@gmx.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20111205123103.0938e248@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111205123103.0938e248@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
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 21:08:53 -0000
On 2011-12-05 21:48, SM wrote: > 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. Oh, indeed. First time I see an update like that. >> 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. :-) OK, will do. Best regards, Julian