[Ecrit] Suggested changes based on IESG review: draft-ietf-ecrit-country-emg-urn

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 19 December 2013 08:30 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0601AE081 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:30:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vHmmI7ZrXDJb for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689951AE207 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:30:36 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-9e-52b2aea93463
Received: from ESESSHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A2.89.27941.9AEA2B25; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 09:30:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.201]) by ESESSHC006.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.36]) with mapi id 14.02.0347.000; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 09:30:17 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Suggested changes based on IESG review: draft-ietf-ecrit-country-emg-urn
Thread-Index: Ac78k0zIFrH8LLZvSNSbnAZ3VG2Ypg==
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:30:17 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C5D8B99@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.19]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C5D8B99ESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre6qdZuCDGY85rBY2Zpv0f/gOqNF 46KnrA7MHkuW/GTy+HL5M1sAUxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxu4/21gLpitVTNuxh62B8bFsFyMn h4SAicT3lT2MELaYxIV769m6GLk4hASOMErc6j/GDJIQEljCKLF+gmEXIwcHm4CFRPc/bZCw iICqxIYzK8F6mQUqJH5On8IKUiIsECzRM8cHoiRC4snMZUwQtp7Ek8nHwGwWoNYJ60+yg9i8 Ar4Ss3+/YQWxGYFO+H5qDRPESHGJW0/mM0GcJiCxZM95ZghbVOLl43+sELaiRPvTBqgT8iVe XPzMDDFTUOLkzCcsExiFZyEZNQtJ2SwkZRBxHYkFuz+xQdjaEssWvmaGsc8ceMyELL6AkX0V I0dxanFSbrqRwSZGYKQc3PLbYgfj5b82hxilOViUxHk/vnUOEhJITyxJzU5NLUgtii8qzUkt PsTIxMEp1cBoxuL35cLBmVo9N/hvLE2PqT7RqftGlUdjlcOCqQUpN6e/rr7ifcnyZOKn6qgH ihbSjG+yWnxzNt9knxXWFdhv5y+RujO4sI779dnbJddbhOt28XbO4891dFmjm2azmufjgc6G iy+X+abqim96FyMQ12H3J8wvU2DlekX9rTdznt8IdVJ79UmJpTgj0VCLuag4EQBEgyWrYgIA AA==
Cc: "ecrit-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ecrit-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "ecrit-ads@tools.ietf.org" <ecrit-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [Ecrit] Suggested changes based on IESG review: draft-ietf-ecrit-country-emg-urn
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:30:39 -0000

Hi,

As part of the IESG review of draft-ietf-ecrit-country-emg-urn-02, there are a couple of change suggestions which I'd like to verify with the community.

First, it has been suggested to remove sections 3 (Problem statement) and 4 (Requirement) from the document, as section 1 (Introduction) already describes the issue and how the draft addresses it.

Second, it has been suggested to:

- remove section 5.2 (existing RFC 5031 section); and
- change section 5.3 (updated RFC 5031 section) so that section 5.3 only contains the updated paragraph of RFC 5031

During the review, there has been confusion about what is existing text, and what the draft updates, so the suggested changes would make it more clear.

Unless people object, I intend to implement the suggested changes.

Regards,

Christer