Hi Al, I trust that you considered the references issue and have no issue with them. I had another question whether there is some experience from actually conducting the tests based on the long time this draft was under development. Regards Roni
> -----Original Message----- > From: Al Morton [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 3:32 AM > To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv- > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv- > meth-23 > > At 03:36 AM 8/16/2011, Roni Even wrote: > > >Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC. > > Thanks for your review, Roni. > > After 8 years, four of them following the first > trip to IESG, all DISCUSSes are *finally cleared*. > We'll be going ahead with the current text + an RFC Editor's note. > > The reference issue is well-known in a WG that makes normative > references to its earlier work (obviously) and > has traditionally produced all its RFCs in the > Informational category - it's the relatively new > classification of normative/informative that causes > this issue, because the BMWG pre-dates the requirement to > separate references in these categories. > > regards, > Al > bmwg chair > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
