Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mboned-lightweight-igmpv3-mldv2-05.txt

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:56:09 -0400

Hi Brian,

My bad. I entered the writeup in the old tracker. I will fix that. In
the mean time, a copy of the write-up is appended to this email.

We chose BCP because this draft doesn't define anything new on the wire.
It's just a subset of IGMP. But we would just as happy to call this a PS.

                                   Ron

WRITE-UP
========
Technical Summary

    This document describes lightweight IGMPv3 and MLDv2 protocols (LW-
    IGMPv3 and LW-MLDv2), which simplify the standard (full) versions of
    IGMPv3 and MLDv2.  The interoperability with the full versions and
    the previous versions of IGMP and MLD is also taken into account.

Working Group Summary

    This draft has received strong support within the working group and
    no major controversies were noted.

Document Quality

    Multiple implementations of this specification exist.  A number of
    other vendors have indicated interest/plans to support this
    specification.  Bharat Joshi provided the most extensive comments
    and questions for the document.  Authors addressed the questions and
    concerns in the document.  Otherwise, mailing list traffic regarding
    this specification has been minimal.  There has been extensive
    comments on this proposal during the working group meetings.

Personnel

    Lenny Giuliano is the Document Shepherd, Ron Bonica is the
    Responsible Area Director.

RFC Editor Note

  (Insert RFC Editor Note here or remove section)

IRTF Note

  (Insert IRTF Note here or remove section)

IESG Note

  (Insert IESG Note here or remove section)

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:48:14 +1200

Thanks Ron.

I certainly don't feel strongly about PS versus BCP, and the IESG may well
agree with BCP. It's one of the fuzzy areas in the way we interpret
our rules, and certainly shouldn't be a show-stopper IMHO. Maybe you
could add a comment in the WG Summary part of the writeup?

    Brian