Subject: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-01

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 12:49:39 -0800

Hi Julian,

Could you review  draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-01 before December 
20?  Please post your review to apps-discuss (see below), and DO NOT 
post it to apps-review.

The review should be sent to apps-discuss, the authors, the WG Chairs 
and document shepherd, if applicable.  You can use the tools alias 
[email-masked] to cover the authors, 
WG chairs, and shepherd.  If your review recommends significant 
changes to a working-group document, you should also consider copying 
the working group's mailing list.

Suggested distribution:
    To: [email-masked], [email-masked]

I removed the IESG from the distribution as this is an early review.

You can view the Apps-review template at 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/template  Some previous 
reviews are accessible at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:25:53 +0100

On 2011-12-03 21:49, SM wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> Could you review draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-01 before December 20?

I just had a look, and the draft indeed is a very small update over RFC 
6046.

It this was new, I would have a few comments on how it uses HTTP, but 
given the fact it already has been accepted as Proposed, this seems 
pointless.

Do we need a more formal review than that?

 > ...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:48:28 -0800

Hi Julian,
At 12:25 05-12-2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
>I just had a look, and the draft indeed is a very small update over RFC 6046.

RFC 6046 is Informational.

>It this was new, I would have a few comments on how it uses HTTP, 
>but given the fact it already has been accepted as Proposed, this 
>seems pointless.
>

The intended status of draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-01 is Proposed 
Standard.  A formal review is helpful as it is provides the point of 
view of somebody with HTTP expertise.  It's also less work for the 
Apps ADs. :-)

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:08:45 +0100

> RFC 6046 is Informational.

Oh, indeed. First time I see an update like that.

> Standard. A formal review is helpful as it is provides the point of view
> of somebody with HTTP expertise. It's also less work for the Apps ADs. :-)

OK, will do.

Best regards, Julian