Dear Barry,
Thanks a lot. We will update a new version based on your guidance.
Best Regards
Jiankang Yao
From my phone
> 在 2019年6月22日，02:28，Barry Leiba <[email protected]> 写道：
>
> Hey, regext folks,
>
> This document had an AD review from Adam, a Gen-ART review from Joel,
> and a SecDir review from Russ, and went through IETF last call. All
> three reviews were responded to on the regext mailing list (by
> Jiankang and by Antoine), but there has been no revision of the draft
> to address the issues raised. That has to happen.
>
> While we're there, there's the issue of the Informational status and
> the registrant contact for the namespace:
>
> It's my understanding that this isn't specifying a standard, but,
> rather, is documenting an existing non-standard extension that is not
> expected to be a standard nor widely implemented. Is that correct?
>
> If so, the document should make that clear in the Abstract (briefly)
> and in the Introduction (somewhat less briefly).
>
> Also, the shepherd writeup doesn't help me understand why this is
> Informational, and it should: (from the writeup text, emphasis mine)
> "Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's
> abstract is usually good for this), and WHY THE WORKING GROUP HAS
> CHOSEN THE REQUESTED PUBLICATION TYPE". You say the working group
> decided, but you don't say why.
>
> So:
> Please revise the draft to address the last call reviews, and also
> please add something to the Introduction (and possibly the Abstract)
> to explain the status of the document, making clear what the standards
> or non-standards status is and what applicability we expect for it.
>
> I'm putting this into a "Revised I-D Needed" substate, awaiting such revision.
>
> Thanks,
> Barry
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
