The short aswer is that this informational document is part of a sstandards track group. While not normative, the WG considers it to be integral with the other normatiive documents in the set. How would you suggest the nomenclature be handled?
On Oct 16, 2009 9:26 AM, "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email protected]> 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-idnabis-mappings-04 Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: Oct 16, 2009 IETF LC End Date: Oct 13, 2009 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a UNKNOWN document. Note that I am not sure what the intended status of this document is (hence the "UNKNOWN" above.) The draft itself appears to think it is headed for "Standards Track", but the IETF Tracker appears to think otherwise -- it thinks that the intended status is "Informational" (please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings/). Other than that, the draft has: Major issues: 0. Minor issues: 0. Nits/editorial comments: 0. Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA) Email: v...@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org} Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
