[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcs-mib-02.txt

Removing ietf@ietf.org from the distribution list for comments about
the editorial notes:

on 2007-02-19 17:43 Keith McCloghrie said the following:
...
>> Editorial:
>> ==========
>> 
>> * No expiration date for draft on the first and last pages. According to
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
>> ===========================================
>> 
>>     A document expiration date should appear on the first and last page
>>     of the Internet-Draft.  The expiration date is 185 days following the
>>     submission of the document as an Internet-Draft.  Use of the phrase
>>     "expires in six months" or "expires in 185 days" is not acceptable.
>  
> The footer (on every page) contains the expiry date.

idnits failed to identify this.  Fixed in version 2.03.2

>> * Intended Status of the document is not specified in the draft. (I 
>> found it is Proposed Standard using the ID Tracker)
>  
> The guidelines say:
> 
>    The Internet-Draft should neither state nor imply that it has any
>    standards status; to do so conflicts with the role of the RFC Editor
>    and the IESG.  The title of the document should not imply a status.
>    Avoid the use of the terms Standard, Proposed, Draft, Experimental,
>    Historic, Required, Recommended, Elective, or Restricted in the title
>    of the Internet-Draft.  Indicating what status the document is aimed
>    for is OK, but should be done with the words "Intended status:
>    <status>".
> 
> Since the I-D neither states nor implies that it has any standards status,
> I believe it complies.

Yes.  But it's certainly easier to know what the intended status is, if the
document is explicit about it.  I understand that the IESG is now trying
hard to not issue Standards Track documents with normative references to
Informational or Experimental RFCs, so it would be helpful to provide that
information up front.  It would also make it easier for readers not intimately
involved in the particular working group to know how to relate to the draft.

That said, the guidelines should probably be updated to a 'should' instead
of 'is OK' regarding this.

	Henrik

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art