Vijay, thanks for your review. Mario, Barry, thanks for your responses aand the new appendix. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Aug 18, 2020, at 9:52 AM, Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 2:57 PM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org > <mailto:barryle...@computer.org>> wrote: > Hi, Mario and Vijay. > > 7942 says that the Implementation Status section is inappropriate to include > in an RFC because it’s transient information that changes, and is usually > obsolete quickly. > > But I don’t interpret Vijay’s suggestion as asking you to leave the section > in the document in it’s entirety, but, rather, to put non-ephemeral > information about a reference implementation into an appendix. If there’s a > stable implementation that can be used in that way, I think it would be > appropriate, and I agree with Vijay that it could be helpful to other > implementors to have that information available. > > Dear Barry and Mario: Thanks for paying attention to my review, and Barry is > indeed correct. > > Especially that the two implementations listed in the implementation section > appear to be almost fully conformant to the draft, and also appear to have > reasonable documentation, etc. around them. It would seem to be a waste of > code to simply take this section out without preserving the good work done > here that can get other implementers started immediately. > > Cheers, > > - vijay > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
