Ben
Here is the plan that was proposed by Russ Housley, May 2008 in a thread
that included Olaf Kolkman:
=================
Here is what I think we should do:
1) Generate an ASCII document (draft-loa-xxxx-00.txt) that contains a
description of the group that generated the document, and a pointer to
the PDF (draft-loa-xxxx-00.pdf).
2) Put the same text in the front of the PDF followed by the slide deck.
3) Submit to Dave Ward as an Individual submission for publication as an
Informational RFC.
4) No IETF Last Call -- we cannot accommodate any requests for changes.
5) IESG approval.
6) RFC Editor turns it into rfcXXXX.txt and rfcXXXX.pdf, where the text
file points to the slides in the PDF file.
Russ
=================
The format of the documents that you reviewed conforms to that plan, and
as you note the reason to go this way is to ensure proper archival.
Stewart
Ben Campbell 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report-00
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:
IESG Telechat date: 09 Oct 2008
Summary:
(I was assigned this both as a LC review and a telechat review--with
the telechat oddly happening before the end of the LC. Hopefully this
review can serve both purposes.)
This draft may be ready to publish as an informational RFC, but there
is an issue I'm not sure what to think of. See details below.
Major issues:
This draft does something I've never seen before, which is to
explicitly call for two versions of the RFC: a PDF version that
contains imbedded slides, and a text version which merely describes
the slides. The one under review is the text version.
I understand the desire to do this, as this draft describes
proceedings of an IETF/ITU-T joint effort, and each group has
different standards of documentation. But I am not sure what to think
of an RFC that is published in two different formats, with the content
being substantially different between them.
I don't propose that this is a bad or or thing--merely something for
the ADs to think about. It might work to have _both_ versions merely
reference the slides as an external document, but that would have
archival issues--which is I think the reason for this draft in the
first place.
Nits/editorial comments:
Abstract, sentence 2:
The first part of the sentence (prior to the colon) does not parse. Is
the word "of" a typo?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
