Subject: [regext] New-AD review of draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-09

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 21:28:53 -0400

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

---

From: Jiankang Yao <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 11:17:23 +0100

Dear Barry,

      Thanks a lot. We will update a new version based on your guidance.

Best Regards 
Jiankang Yao 

From my phone

> 在 2019年6月22日，02:28，Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> 写道：
> 
> Hey, regext folks,
>