Roni: many thanks for the review. > > Minor issues: > > The document is not a requirement document. It is a use case, requirement and > solution document so the abstract and the title are confusing. > > I think it will be better to have the use case section before the > requirements in section 3. Since the use cases are the reason for the rest of > the document. > > Section 3 is called requirements but it is not about requirements from a > solution but also normative text about behavior of clients and servers. > > This leads to the question why is it Informational document since it has > normative recommendations for a solution.
Has there been a response to this? I can not find further e-mails relating to this topic, but I'm sorry if I just missed them. It would be good to get the authors/sponsoring AD to reply before we recommend approving the document. FWIW, I have read the document and think that the requirements in Section 3 are perhaps more fine-grained that in most requirement documents, but they are not implementation requirements, and hence an informational document is OK from my perspective. > I also think that there is a need for IANA section to discuss requirements > for new LFSs. > There was quite a lot of discussion of LFSes in the document, but I interpreted them in an abstract sense, i.e., there was no specific suggestions on additions to LFSes. Jari _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
