Re: [dtn-interest] [IRSG] Notification of IRSG poll start for draft-irtf-dtnrg-metadata-block

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juergen.

We have now got proper IANA considerations in these docs, and
I think there was reasonable concensus on the authoritative 
reference for SDNVs previously.

Please check out
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-metadata-block-09.
Would you now be happy to change your vote to 'Yes' in the poll?

Regards,
Elwyn

On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:22 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 05:32:19PM +0100, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> > Dear IRSG Memeber,
> > 
> > The DTN RG I-D: draft-irtf-dtnrg-metadata-block has
> > completed IRSG review.
> > The revised version of the I-D (Version 07) which incorporates the comments is
> > now available at:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-dtnrg-metadata-block
> > Loxia Zhang who has performed the IRSG review and the DTN RG have
> > approved the revised I-D to be progressed for publication.
> > 
> > The IRSG review is available from the IRTF tracker web page at:
> > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/33
> > 
> > Please consider this email as the start of a four week IRSG poll. The
> > deadline for this poll is : Wednesday, March 24th, 2010.
> > 
> > Please use one of the poll responses defined below.
> > The possible poll responses are:
> > 
> >     o  'Ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read and reasonably
> >         detailed review
> > 
> >     o  'Not ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read, reasonably
> >        detailed review, and actionable comments.
> > 
> >     o  'No objection' -- I don't object if this document goes forward;
> >        I've read the document (perhaps quickly); I have some small
> >        comments which are not show stoppers; I don't have great
> >        expertise in the area.
> > 
> >     o  'Request more time to review' -- a commitment to provide a
> >        thorough review in a specified period of time.
> > 
> > The most relevant rule is that "At least two other IRSG members (besides the
> > one sponsoring the document) need to vote 'ready to publish' for the
> > document to move forward."
> 
> I read the document and I vote "Note ready to publish" for two
> reasons:
> 
> First, the IANA considerations sections seems to be at odds with
> section 4.2 which requires registration of metadata types. The IANA
> Considerations section, however, only loosely talks about "we may
> consider creating a registry". I believe the document should actually
> create the relevant registries and establish the necessary procedures.
> 
> Second, I am wondering what the authoritative reference for SDNV
> encodings is going to be. This document refers to the bundle protocol
> specification but it is brought forward with a separate document
> defining SDNVs. This raises in fact the question whether
> draft-irtf-dtnrg-sdnv-06 is going to update RFC 5050, which has its
> own set of questions (an Informational document updating an
> Experimental document).
> 
> /js
> 
> PS: Someone needs to forward my comments to the DTNRG mailing list
>     since I am not subscribed and the mailer simply rejects my emails.
>