Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>       Thanks a lot. We will update a new version based on your guidance.

It's been almost 12 weeks.  Is a new version forthcoming?  When can we
expect it?

Barry

> > 在 2019年6月22日，02:28，Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>; 写道：
> >
> > Hey, regext folks,
> >
> > This document had an AD review from Adam, a Gen-ART review from Joel,
> > and a SecDir review from Russ, and went through IETF last call.  All
> > three reviews were responded to on the regext mailing list (by
> > Jiankang and by Antoine), but there has been no revision of the draft
> > to address the issues raised.  That has to happen.
> >
> > While we're there, there's the issue of the Informational status and
> > the registrant contact for the namespace:
> >
> > It's my understanding that this isn't specifying a standard, but,
> > rather, is documenting an existing non-standard extension that is not
> > expected to be a standard nor widely implemented.  Is that correct?
> >
> > If so, the document should make that clear in the Abstract (briefly)
> > and in the Introduction (somewhat less briefly).
> >
> > Also, the shepherd writeup doesn't help me understand why this is
> > Informational, and it should: (from the writeup text, emphasis mine)
> > "Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's
> > abstract is usually good for this), and WHY THE WORKING GROUP HAS
> > CHOSEN THE REQUESTED PUBLICATION TYPE".  You say the working group
> > decided, but you don't say why.
> >
> > So:
> > Please revise the draft to address the last call reviews, and also
> > please add something to the Introduction (and possibly the Abstract)
> > to explain the status of the document, making clear what the standards
> > or non-standards status is and what applicability we expect for it.
> >
> > I'm putting this into a "Revised I-D Needed" substate, awaiting such revision.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Barry