As shepherd, I agree with what Jari says and stand by my comment that Informational is the right intended status. FWIW, I did raise the issue of copying text with Tero and was satisfied that it was an editorial choice to do it that way.
Robert On 3 December 2015 at 13:46, Jari Arkko <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Lwip mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip > >
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
