RE: Last Call: draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-template (A Template for Documents Containing a MIB Module) to BCP

I am basically OK with this document. Some comments you may consider though: - Should you add aa [TODO] to section 5.1 which states that the editor of the document should describe the Textual Conventions (if any) in the MIB module? - I wonder if guidance is needed that they can leave out sect

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-lemonade-deployments (Deployment Considerations for lemonade-compliant Mobile Email) to BCP

Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > handled by the RFC-Editor Yes, while I was at it I simply noted all observations. ['exist a number of' vs. 'exists a number of'] > the original text is correct Now that you say it, I read this recently: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/numbero

Re: Last Call: 'Telnet START-TLS Option' to Proposed Standard (draft-altman-telnet-starttls)

I note, belatedly, that draft-altman-telnet-starttls-02.txt has a normative dependency on draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings-XX.txt (rightly so IMO) which in turn has a normative dependency on draft-williams-on-channel-binding-00 which in turn is some way off completion As such, I consider a Last

RE: [Int-area] Last Call: draft-bonica-internet-icmp (Modifying ICMP to Support Multi-part Messages) to Proposed Standard

The document has Intended Status of Standards Track but includes a Normative Reference to RFC 3022 which is am Informative RFC. According to RFC 3967, Section 3, the need for the downward reference explicitly should have been documented in the Last Call itself. I believe that either the Last Call n

Shepherds and individual submissions (Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes)

Brian, Tom, >> Who is shepherd for an individual submission? > > The sponsoring AD. However, draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines > (which will be updated shortly, so don't worry about > its terminology issues) adds: > >Once the AD has agreed to sponsor a document, the authors need to >provide

Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

On 2007-01-18 09:49, Tom.Petch wrote: Who is shepherd for an individual submission? The sponsoring AD. However, draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines (which will be updated shortly, so don't worry about its terminology issues) adds: Once the AD has agreed to sponsor a document, the authors need

Re: Tracking resolution of DISCUSSes

Who is shepherd for an individual submission? Tom Petch - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Sam Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Henrik Levkowetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Se