Folks, what Suresh is saying makes since to me. If other folks agree,
can you update the draft to resolve these and the sec-dir review
comments and submit a new version of the draft.
Thanks, Cullen
On Sep 19, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-mmusic-qos-identification-01.txt
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<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.
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Proposed
Standard, but I have a suggestion.
Downref
=======
* I feel that the downward reference to RFC4080 is not necessary at
all. (more details below)
IANA considerations
===================
* Section 6.3 : Since this document is creating the registry and
assigning the initial values, THIS document (and its eventual RFC)
needs to be the reference and NOT the rsvp or nsis RFCs. So this
registry would read
QoS Mechanism Reference
---------------------------- ---------
rsvp RFC XXXX
nsis RFC XXXX
Given this RFC 2205 and 4080 can be moved to the informational
references section.
Cheers
Suresh
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
