--On 18. september 2007 08:16 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2007-09-17 18:51, Miguel Garcia wrote:
Hi Thomas:
With the first point, I am not trying to be picky, so, whatever you
decide I have no problem. My only comment is that RFC 4858 made a
forward statement, by saying: "hei, there is a coming document that is
going to say more about the Document Shepherd responsibilities with
respect IANA, so please, keep tuned". This document is your document,
but does not say anything. So, I felt curious to know what your document
should say about the Document Shepherd role. But perhaps I misinterpret
RFC 4585, so if you think your document is ok, I am fine too.
As the ex-shepherd for 2434bis itself, I tend to agree with
Thomas - it seems obvious that the shepherd for a given draft
should check that it does what 2434bis says it should do,
but it seems redundant to say that in 2434bis.
I'd go as far as saying that the forward pointer in 4858 was a mistake, and
the next revision of that document should drop the reference....
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
