Hi Robert, thanks for your review! While I share your „sadness“, putting it in the document does not seem to be an option.
But maybe this is actually a request for the tools team to provide another way to upload files (by wg chairs) than just the proceedings. I guess today people would rather upload something to GitHub but that also not something one would want to reference in an RFC. Is there actually still a way to request a svn repo for wgs? or should this be integrated somehow in the datatracker..? I believe we discussed this in the IESG briefly when we discuss GitHub. But I guess I, or actually you, could bring this up again. However, in this case it seems more like a tooling issue for me. Mirja > Am 01.08.2017 um 20:07 schrieb Robert Sparks <[email protected]>: > > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 2017-08-01 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-09 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC > > This document is straightforward in the changes it is making to OPUS. > > My only note of sadness is that it continues to use a documentation mechanism > started by RFC6716 of effectively making a normative reference to the > _proceedings_ of previous IETF meetings. (Note that this document does this > twice: once for the patch file, which is a convenience - the information is in > the draft, and once for the updated test vectors. This is _not_ a convenience, > the information is not in the draft. If, for whatever reason, the proceedings > URL could not be retrieved, someone could not verify their implementation with > the updated test vectors). > > On the one hand, we've set the precedent, and we could agree to just let this > go (I'm recommending that to the IESG with this review). On the other hand, we > could make things _slightly_ better (or perhaps just different) by putting the > test vectors in the doc as an appendix as a uuencoded compressed tarball. > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
