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-nottingham-site-meta-03 Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: Oct 16, 2009 IETF LC End Date: Nov 6, 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 "Informational", but the IETF Tracker appears to think otherwise -- it thinks that the intended status is "Proposed Standard" (please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-nottingham-site-meta/). Other than that, the draft has: Major issues: 0. Minor issues: 1. Nits/editorial comments: 0. Minor issue: 1) In the past when we have established some of these registries (c.f., rfc5341, rfc3969) we have populated these registries with "initial values" --- essentially grand-fathering existing usages. Given that, I am merely curious on whether it makes sense to grand-father in the "robots.txt" usage in this draft? Of course, implementations would still search for "robots.txt" in the normal location. 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
