Hi all,
I have uploaded all the reviews received to date along with the updated
s/s. Please let me know if there are any errors or omissions.
Thanks,
Mary.
_
From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:27 PM
To: General
BOCCI Matthew allegedly wrote on 06/16/2009 10:40 AM:
> Scott,
>
> Many thanks for your review.
Matthew and all: Thanks for your excellent handling of this. I'm very
happy.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinf
Stewart,
I guess following precedent is the path of least resistance.
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>>
>> While I completely agree with Matthew's edits, do informative RFCs
>> normally have normative references? None of the text is
Andrew G. Malis wrote:
While I completely agree with Matthew's edits, do informative RFCs
normally have normative references? None of the text is normative
Cheers,
Andy
That was my first reaction when I saw Scott's comment, but we
(the editors) looked for a definitive guide and could n
While I completely agree with Matthew's edits, do informative RFCs
normally have normative references? None of the text is normative
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:40 AM, BOCCI
Matthew wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Many thanks for your review.
>
>> -Original Message-
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>
Scott,
Many thanks for your review.
> -Original Message-
[snip]
>
> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> - In this one paragraph:
>
> Note that although Figure 4 only shows a
