So, I am a bit confused, just to summarize my understanding so far :-
- if the document status is standards track, then there is no issue.
- if the document status is informational, then remove the RFC 2119 usage. Then
I am afraid the message of the draft becomes at the best dubious.
- retain it
Hi,
As my review said - please wait for instructions from the document
shepherd. The IESG discussion is what counts. My opinion is only
my opinion.
Regards
Brian
On 2011-06-05 19:21, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
So, I am a bit confused, just to summarize my understanding so far :-
-
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. Please
resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08
I am not sure whether there was or would be WG consensus for standards
track. We might have to ask the WG that question.
Compared to that, removing RFC 2119 language could probably be a much
simpler and faster solution. And I don't understand why that would
affect the content of the draft that
On 6/5/2011 8:18 PM, Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
Michael,
I am sometimes confused with the thinking of *some* TCPM work group
members esp., for such simple drafts(harmless drafts). Now, what if it
is a standards track document, would it be harmful to the internet? Or
if it is
Wes,
This document contains no protocol and alters no protocol.
True, but it makes a strong statement about what implementations
must do. I had a quick look, and most implementation guidelines
are Informational, although one or two (e.g. RFC 5625) are BCP.
It would be a lot clearer to a new
