Thanks Barry. We have finished an initial new version. We will refine it and submit it within 2 weeks.
Best Regards. Jiankang Yao > -----原始邮件----- > 发件人: "Barry Leiba" <barryle...@computer.org> > 发送时间: 2019-09-13 09:21:02 (星期五) > 收件人: "Jiankang Yao" <ya...@cnnic.cn> > 抄送: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration....@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org > 主题: Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09 > > > Thanks a lot. We will update a new version based on your guidance. > > It's been almost 12 weeks. Is a new version forthcoming? When can we > expect it? > > Barry > > > > 在 2019年6月22日，02:28，Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org>; 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 > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
