[catching up after some vacation...] Thanks a lot, Miguel! Mark, I've updated the draft in a revision 08 which I have not yet submitted. 6lowpan Chairs and secretary: when is the IETF LC over so I can submit the final version with these changes?
FYI, the list of changes from 07 to 08 is: Deleted unused reference to ND. Changed category to "informational". Got rid of section 1.1 on requirements notation and deleted reference to RFC2119. Left only these as normative: [ieee802.15.4] and [RFC2460]. -gabriel ----- Original Message ---- From: Mark Townsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Miguel Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Carsten Bormann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; General Area Review Team <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 5:47:30 AM Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of IETF LC draft-ietf-6lowpan-problem-07.txt Miguel Garcia wrote: > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > > Document: draft-ietf-6lowpan-problem-07.txt > Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Review Date: 2007-02-16 > IETF LC End Date: 2007-03-01 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC. > > Comments: > > A couple of minor comments: > > 1) The draft indicates in its 3rd line that the intended status is > "Standards Track". However, the I-D tracker is listing it as > Informational. The draft itself seems to be merely informational, due > to the lack of normative statements. Yes, it should be Informational. The proper status is in the tracker, so I think we can leave it up to the RFC Editor here. I'll include a note for them if the document doesn't end up being revised for some other reason. > > 2) Since the draft does not contain any normative statement > (capitalized MUST, MAY, SHOULD, etc.), I am not sure if Section 1.1 > and the reference to RFC 2119 makes sense. It could be safely deleted. Agreed. > > 3) The split between normative and informative references is a bit > subjective. In my opinion, the only normative references here should > be [ieee802.15.4] and [RFC2460], I think the others are informative in > nature. > > Other than these nits, the draft looks good. Thanks for the review. I'll capture these as Editor's notes for now. - Mark > > /Miguel > > > _________
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
