Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-02

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

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?