[Changing the subject and removing GenArt and the document authors/chairs]
On 9/21/12 10:52 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10 lines above the abstract,
that says Obsoletes: 5721 (if approved).
The IESG
On Sep 21, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
[Changing the subject and removing GenArt and the document authors/chairs]
On 9/21/12 10:52 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10
On Sep 21, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
[Changing the subject and removing GenArt and the document authors/chairs]
On 9/21/12 10:52 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the
--On Friday, September 21, 2012 15:25 -0500 Ben Campbell
b...@estacado.net wrote:
It's certainly useful to some folks. Necessary? (*Shrug*) Not
enough wasted bits for me to care one way or the other.
As a Gen-ART reviewer, I called it out for exactly the reasons
Pete mentions, and care
On 09/22/2012 03:25 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
...
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10 lines above the
abstract, that says Obsoletes: 5721 (if approved).
The IESG put this into the nits check before my time. The Last Call
