This really looks good. I have a few short questions:
- In 3.2 Discussion - does the technical publisher have to take steps to
make sure that a draft remains available for more than 6 months?
- Current Req-REFVAL-2 - Is the IETF responsible for forwarding documents
with resolved references, or is the technical publisher supposed to catch
these? (I thought IESG was trying to keep from approving documents with
unapproved normative references, for example)
- In 3.6, why is technical publisher involved with IANA? (Is there an
interface between technical publisher and IANA that we don't see from the
IETF?)
- In 3.8 - do we care if there are identifiers that get allocated but don't
get used (document is withdrawn, or something similar)?
- In 3.12, we say "used sparingly" for expedited handling, but we do pick
numbers for metrics elsewhere. Would it make sense to name a percentage of
documents that may be expedited in normal operation?
- In 3.17, is full-text search required?
- In 3.19 - I note that we are spending time looking at lists of "the oldest
documents in specific status" elsewhere - include exception reporting as a
requirement?
Thanks! As I say, it's looking good.
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
