Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-02
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Tue, 14 July 2009 13:36 UTC
Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E5528C181; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZfQ8HR+o31FJ; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from osprey.verisign.com (osprey.verisign.com [216.168.239.75]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C47D3A6D07; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n6EDNYN6002674; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:23:34 -0400
Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:35:46 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:35:45 -0400
Message-ID: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0702B8DD36@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
In-Reply-To: <6270CC03-8825-4D53-B81B-79D3AD093B74@estacado.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-02
Thread-Index: AcoEhbJSXopRjeMhRc2Homk81Fv4lgAAT/8w
References: <615495A1-0EAE-4E22-865C-57A11FF1DF9E@estacado.net> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0702B8DD26@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6270CC03-8825-4D53-B81B-79D3AD093B74@estacado.net>
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jul 2009 13:35:46.0050 (UTC) FILETIME=[FDE94620:01CA0487]
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:36:25 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@estacado.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:19 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: General Area Review Team; Alexey Melnikov; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-02 > > > On Jul 14, 2009, at 6:07 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > > >> I have a a couple comments about the implementation > report. I do not > >> necessarily consider them blocking issues; I bring them up > merely for > >> consideration. > >> > >> -- The implementation report refers to RFC and draft versions that > >> are (at least) a couple of generations old. I assume that > the authors > >> believe that they also apply to this draft, but it would > be good to > >> have an explicit assertion of that. > >> > >> -- It would help to have an explicit assertion whether the report > >> author believes the standard meets the requirements to progress to > >> draft. I think the report implies a "yes", but it leaves > the reader > >> to draw that conclusion. > > > > 4933bis is a candidate for progression to Standard, not Draft > > Standard, as 4933 is already a Draft Standard. The implementation > > report was written as part of the effort to publish 3733bis (which > > became 4933 in May 2007) as a Draft Standard. That's why things > > appear dated. > > > > -Scott- > > Oops, sorry, I got confused on that point since the 01 review. > > Am I correct in assuming that you, as the author of the > implementation report, believe that the it is still > applicable to 4933bis, and that it meets the requirements for > _full_ standard? Yes, I believe that the report is still applicable and that all requirements for progression have been met. -Scott-
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-hollen… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ho… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ho… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ho… Hollenbeck, Scott