- From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:35:13 -0800
- To: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
- CC: discuss@apps.ietf.org, Timur Shemsedinov <Timur@niist.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua>
Patrik, Wednesday, December 31, 1969, 8:10:12 PM, you wrote: Patrik> I have as Area Director got a request to publish the named I-D as Patrik> Informational RFC. I hereby would like to get input from the Patrik> Applications Area on the document. Given that that they are seeking Informational, rather than standards track, I assume that an IETF review should focus on whether the specification has misrepresentations and whether it conflicts in dangerous ways with any IETF effort. I assume that the IETF should NOT offer any standards-oriented language, such as "this looks like a useful protocol". So, my own reading is: This is a thoughtful effort that discusses related efforts. It states what problem it is trying to solve and it states its reasons for its technical choices. I am not aware of any conflicts or misrepresentations from this work. For work of this sort done now, it is surprising that the specification invents a new syntax, rather than using XML. However is nothing "dangerous" or otherwise inappropriate in the syntax choice they have made. d/ -- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> TribalWise <http://www.tribalwise.com> t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 11:47:30 UTC