Subject: Comment on RFC4858

From: "Turner, Sean P." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:08:47 -0800

All,

I think we MUST add a bullet to the write-up section (3.1) to indicate what
track the ID is bound for.

spts

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 15:23:56 -0800

> track the ID is bound for.

That's supposed to be in the header of the draft itself.

The writeup tries to avoid asking information that is already  
available, to save the shepherd unnecessary work.

Lars

---

From: "Ross Callon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:46:44 -0500

In practice it sometimes isn't in the header (although yes it is
supposed to be), and sometimes the requested status contradicts what the
document says. One possible example of the latter might occur if the WG
changes its mind regarding what the intended status should be, and the
authors forget to update the draft. 

Thus I find it useful when WG chairs explicitly tell me (as AD) what the
intended status is for a submitted document. 

Ross 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Eggert [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 06 December 2007 18:24
To: ext Turner, Sean P.
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Comment on RFC4858

Lars

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:08:47 -0800

On 2007-12-6, at 15:46, ext Ross Callon wrote:
> supposed to be)

If it isn't, idnits throws an error, and the shepherd is supposed to  
check this before pub-requesting.

> , and sometimes the requested status contradicts what the

Since the IESG eventually approves the document, it's the document  
that needs to have correct and consistent information.

I mean, I'm not totally opposed to adding this, but I just don't see  
how it would help much.

Lars