Ah, I reviewed version 8, which had an intended status of Historic. As I was nearing the end of the document, -09 was released. Instead of reading -09 all over again, I read the diffs between -08 and -09. Looks like the intended status was changed to Informational in -09, and this change, while it showed up in the diff, escaped me since I looked at the changes in the body of the I-D, not the headers.
I don't see a need to re-issue a Gen-ART review, unless others do, in which case I am happy to re-issue. Cheers, - vijay On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 8:52 PM Harlan Stenn <st...@nwtime.org> wrote: > I thought we were going for Informational. > > On 7/6/2020 10:18 AM, Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker wrote: > > Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani > > 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-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09 > > Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani > > Review Date: 2020-07-06 > > IETF LC End Date: 2020-06-15 > > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > > > Summary: This I-D is ready to be published as a Historical RFC. > > > > Major issues: 0 > > > > Minor issues: 0 > > > > Nits/editorial comments: 0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ntp mailing list > > n...@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp > > > > -- > Harlan Stenn <st...@nwtime.org> > http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member! >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
