Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13.txt> (FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport) to Proposed Standard

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 07:53 29-02-2012, Vincent Roca wrote:
>I didn't see you initial email (I'm not not on the [e-mail] 
>mailing list), which explains why you didn't receive any feedback.

That explains why the authors did not respond to the comments.  It 
does not explain why the working group asked the IETF Community to 
review the draft.  Or is the working group using ietf@ as a 
unidirectional transport? :-)

 From the Introduction Section:

   "This document defines FLUTE version 2, a protocol for unidirectional
    delivery of files over the Internet.  This specification is not
    backwards compatible with the previous experimental version defined
    in [RFC3926]"

The Write-up mentions that this draft represents the solid consensus 
of the working group.  It also mentions that "The document is of high 
quality and has been subject to extensive review in its Internet 
Draft and Experimental RFC forms.  The revised draft represents a 
modest set of changes from the original Experimental RFC 3926.  These 
changes are clearly described in the document".  This "modest set of 
changes" affects the IPR status of the document.  The question which 
one might ask is why do a modest set of changes then.

Regards,
-sm