Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 25 Feb 2010

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:39:31 -0600

Hi all,

Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100225-lc.html

The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art.html
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The standard template is included below.

Thanks,
Mary.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:58:54 -0500

Document: draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-03
     SMTP Service Extension for 8-bit MIME Transport
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 28-Feb-2010
IETF LC End Date: 3-March-2010
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Standard.

Comment: I presume the use of domain names that are not formal examples 
(are not compliant with 2606) is done in order to reduce gratuitous 
changes from RFC 1652, which used the same domains names for examples 
which are used here.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:12:52 -0500

Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes-01
     Specifying Holes in LoST Service Boundaries
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 28-Feb-2010
IETF LC End Date: 10-March-2010
IESG Telechat date: 11-March-2010

Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed 
Standard

Minor issues:  Shouldn't the IPR text be the current text, with the 
appropriate caveats for this being an old document?

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:14:09 -0800

Hi Joel,

Thank you for your review.

At 09:58 28-02-10, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>Comment: I presume the use of domain names that are not formal 
>examples (are not compliant with 2606) is done in order to reduce 
>gratuitous changes from RFC 1652, which used the same domains names 
>for examples which are used here.

Yes, this is to avoid gratuitous changes when advancing the 
specification from Draft Standard to Full Standard.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy