Harald, Many thanks for reviewing this draft.
> This document does 2 things: > > - Register an extension to pass implementation identities around > - Change the registration requirement for extensions to allow > Experimental extensions to be registered It also instructs IANA to correct some registry problems. > 1) I read RFC 3720 section 13.5.2 as saying that publication > of extensions as standards-track is allowed, even though the > wording is quite convoluted. So the implication of the > language in section 5 that it was previously restricted to > informational only seems unwarranted. The WG and the editor of the draft that became RFC 3270 do not share your view of the convoluted wording, and regard this draft as making a change to the process requirements in RFC 3270. At a minimum, this draft unambiguously states what is allowed. > 2) It would be good if section 5 of this draft pointed > specifically at section 13.5.2 of RFC 3720 as the section to > be updated, and provided specific language to be read as > "this section is now replaced by". I *think* the text only > means that the words "as an informational RFC" are changed to > "as an informational or experimental RFC, as appropriate", > but it would be nice to be 100% certain that this is the > intended effect, and that no other section of RFC 3720 needs > changing (my scan of 3720 might have overlooked something). I believe your thinking is correct, and I will supply the Area Director (Lars) with an appropriate RFC Editor Note. Many thanks to the Gen-ART process and the people who make it happen, as this draft would have been far less likely to receive this caliber of IETF Last Call review in Gen-ART's absence. Thanks, --David (ips WG chair & shepherd for this draft) > -----Original Message----- > From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 4:47 AM > To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lars Eggert; Black, David > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-03 > > Document: draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-03 > Reviewer: Harald Tveit Alvestrand > Review Date: 2006-12-07 > IETF LC End Date: 2006-12-11 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > Summary: Ready to go. Small grumbles. > > Comments: > > This document does 2 things: > > - Register an extension to pass implementation identities around > - Change the registration requirement for extensions to allow > Experimental extensions to be registered > > The first point is adequately described, with more than > enough caveats about what to do and not to do. > > The last one seems quite reasonable, given that Informational > registration was already allowed. I'm not completely happy > about the lumping of that one into this document, but that's > the call of the WG and AD. > > Two points, which may be addressed if the document is > revisited for other reasons: > > 1) I read RFC 3720 section 13.5.2 as saying that publication > of extensions as standards-track is allowed, even though the > wording is quite convoluted. So the implication of the > language in section 5 that it was previously restricted to > informational only seems unwarranted. > > 2) It would be good if section 5 of this draft pointed > specifically at section 13.5.2 of RFC 3720 as the section to > be updated, and provided specific language to be read as > "this section is now replaced by". I *think* the text only > means that the words "as an informational RFC" are changed to > "as an informational or experimental RFC, as appropriate", > but it would be nice to be 100% certain that this is the > intended effect, and that no other section of RFC 3720 needs > changing (my scan of 3720 might have overlooked something). > > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ips/draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key / claims that there are no nits. Good. > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
