This remains quite incomplete: the last call comments have not been properly handled.
In Sections 6.1, 6.2, 7.1.2, and all the 7.2.x you made changes in response to Adam’s AD review, but you tried to use the second of his suggested fixes. What you did do is flawed, as you have introduced a space character between the two U+ characters (which is why he advised against that fix, because doing it without the extra space makes it hard to read, but adding the space makes it wrong). Please fix that. I suggest using Adam’s XML-escaping example to fix it. The Gen-ART review asked for BCP 14 key words in Section 5, and you said you would add them. You did not. That’s fine if you ultimately decided not to (I personally think it is not necessary), but I want to make sure you didn’t simply forget to make that change. The Gen-ART review asked for a brief explanation of what the conditions might be for not complying with the “SHOULD” requirements in Sections 7.2.x, and what the consequences would be. You did not add that, and I think it’s necessary. Please add an explanation in each of those sections. The SecDir review suggested changing the contact for the IANA registrations to the IETF, rather than the authors, and I agree: it should be “the IETF”, probably with the regext mailing list as the contact information. You did not make any change. Please do. You also did not address my comment about needing an explanation for why this is Informational and not Proposed Standard. It’s fine for it to be Informational, but the shepherd writeup needs to explain why (please update it), and the Introduction probably should also, assuming that reason has to do with the deployment, applicability, or maturity of what’s documented here. I won’t pass this up to the IESG until all these points are addressed. So back into Revised I-D needed this goes, and please handle this without undue delay. Thanks, Barry On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:15 AM Jiankang Yao <ya...@cnnic.cn> wrote: > 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
