RE: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-02

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:19 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: General Area Review Team; Alexey Melnikov; [e-mail]
> 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-