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

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 6:23 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; General Area Review Team
> Cc: Alexey Melnikov; [e-mail]
> Subject: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-02
> 
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team 
> (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, 
> please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
> 
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD 
> before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-02
> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
> Review Date: 13 July 2009
> IESG Telechat date: 16 July 2009
> 
> Summary:
> 
> The draft is ready for publication. However, I have a couple 
> of minor comments about the implementation report at 
> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFCs3730-3734_implem.txt
>   that may relate to the progression to draft standard.
> 
> (I apologize for not making these comments sooner--this is 
> the first progression to draft that I have reviewed, and only 
> recently had thoughts on the implementation report.)
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> None.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> 
> 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-