Hey, regext folks, This document had an AD review from Adam, a Gen-ART review from Joel, and a SecDir review from Russ, and went through IETF last call. All three reviews were responded to on the regext mailing list (by Jiankang and by Antoine), but there has been no revision of the draft to address the issues raised. That has to happen.
While we're there, there's the issue of the Informational status and the registrant contact for the namespace: It's my understanding that this isn't specifying a standard, but, rather, is documenting an existing non-standard extension that is not expected to be a standard nor widely implemented. Is that correct? If so, the document should make that clear in the Abstract (briefly) and in the Introduction (somewhat less briefly). Also, the shepherd writeup doesn't help me understand why this is Informational, and it should: (from the writeup text, emphasis mine) "Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's abstract is usually good for this), and WHY THE WORKING GROUP HAS CHOSEN THE REQUESTED PUBLICATION TYPE". You say the working group decided, but you don't say why. So: Please revise the draft to address the last call reviews, and also please add something to the Introduction (and possibly the Abstract) to explain the status of the document, making clear what the standards or non-standards status is and what applicability we expect for it. I'm putting this into a "Revised I-D Needed" substate, awaiting such revision. Thanks, Barry _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
