For what it is worth, I at least saw the marking of the appendix material as clear.
I have a comment on the status of the document. I have no objection to using other status classifications (Proposed Standard and/or Applicability Statement), but from my perspective of someone who might use this technology, Informational is a good fit. We already have the standard. We are not changing the standard. Someone has provided information about how to implement the standard in a given setting and under constraints. This useful information and a useful reference for people who building things. There is no presumption that the same answer is applicable for other environments. The document is quite clear on what the requirements of the standard are. The document has some material copied instead of using the by reference approach. I consider that an editorial choice, and only an editorial choice. It should not affect the standing of the document as such. FWIW, the editorial choice has some trade-offs, but one that is not made in the document is not an unreasonable one. And the document certainly is clear in what it says. Other choices might have been made with a different set of trade-offs, but that’s another matter. Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
