Dear Barry,
The new version has been submitted. It addresses the comments received
during IETF LC.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-10
Thanks.
Jiankang Yao
> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人: "Jiankang Yao" <ya...@cnnic.cn>
> 发送时间: 2019-09-13 16:39:04 (星期五)
> 收件人: "Barry Leiba" <barryle...@computer.org>
> 抄送: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration....@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09
>
>
> Thanks Barry.
> We have finished an initial new version. We will refine it and submit it
> within 2 weeks.
>
> Best Regards.
>
> Jiankang Yao
>
> > -----原始邮件-----
> > 发件人: "Barry Leiba" <barryle...@computer.org>
> > 发送时间: 2019-09-13 09:21:02 (星期五)
> > 收件人: "Jiankang Yao" <ya...@cnnic.cn>
> > 抄送: draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration....@ietf.org, regext@ietf.org
> > 主题: Re: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09
> >
> > > Thanks a lot. We will update a new version based on your guidance.
> >
> > It's been almost 12 weeks. Is a new version forthcoming? When can we
> > expect it?
> >
> > Barry
> >
> > > > 在 2019年6月22日，02:28，Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org>; 写道：
> > > >
> > > > 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
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
