Hi, The -09 version resolves my comments completely, thanks!
Brian On 08/05/2015 12:26, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > It seems the author didn't see my Last Call review, so this review has > not changed. > > > Nope, I hadn't. Apologies for that. > > > As the writeup says, this is an update to a long document that mainly > resolves a > notified erratum and some oversights in the previous version's IANA > material. > Therefore I did not review the whole document. As far as I can tell, the > changes > reflect the description in the writeup. (I assume that IANA will work > with the > author to get the registry updates exactly right.) > > > Yes, that's already happening behind the scenes. > > > Minor Issue: > ------------ > > IMHO the "Change History" section should be summarised in a "Changes > since RFC7001" > section (rather than being deleted). > > > Sure, that seems a reasonable suggestion. > > Nit: > ---- > > 6.7. SMTP Enhanced Stauts Codes > > s/Stauts/Status/ > > > Fixed for next version. > > Thanks! > > -MSK _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
