Subject: [Gen-art] review: draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-01

From: Joel Halpern <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 18:07:33 -0400

This revision (-01) represents a reasonable effort to address my 
concerns.  My thanks to the author.

The document is ready for publication as a BCP

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

On 4/22/16 12:10 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-00
>     Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation
>         Status Section
> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
> Review Date: 22-April-2016
> IETF LC End Date: 13-May-2016
> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
>
> Summary:
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>     The introduction describes RFC1264 as requiring at least one
> implementation.  The general requirement in RFC 1264 is multiple
> implementations, at least two independent.  While it is a minor issue,
> this document should characterize RFC 1264 more carefully.
>
>     In the Alternative Formats section, it strikes me that there is an
> alternative that is sometimes useful that is de-emphasised by the text
> as written.  If there has been significant insight gained from the
> implementations, that may be useful to capture in a longer-lived
> context.  In that case, an RFC describing implementation may still be
> useful.  I would appreciate it if the authors would consider adding a
> short paragraph to this effect.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>