[Removed rest of the discussion as we are in agreement]
>> The Abstract and Introduction sound like they should be
attached to an Informational document; why is this going for PS?
>>
>> [Uma]: Made few changes to introduction to also address your
comment above. But this has been made PS as it updates RFC5286, which is a PS.
>>Would be happy to take care any further
comments specifically.
>I think that starting off with "shares experience gained from
implementing"
>is what primed me to think "informational". The key point for making
it PS
>is the "updates and expands", and perhaps also the "provides detailed
>criteria". So if it started out more like "Deployment experience
gained
>from [...] has revealed some avenues for potential impirovement. This
>document provides explicit inequalities [...]", that would change the
tone
>to be more consistent throughout, in my opinion. (But of course, feel
free
>to go ahead as-is or with other changes; this is a non-blocking
comment and
>I have no attachment to my specific proposal.)
I see what you are saying. Sure shall take care of this before upload. Thank
you!
--
Uma C.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
