Guidance on Interoperation and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft Standard
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) Yes
Section 5.3., paragraph 0: > 5.3. Schemas, languages and formats As another example for this section, you may also want to add an informative reference to draft-bradner-metricstest, which is the basis of a (to-be-submitted) work item in IPPM that will define how performance metrics advance along the standards track.
(Adrian Farrel) Yes
(Tim Polk) Yes
(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) Yes
1. Section 3 - Format > The format of implementation and interoperability reports MUST be ASCII text with line-breaks for readability. This is slightly inconsistent with the recommendation for formating text in the Internet-Drafts at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html > Internet-Drafts must be in ASCII. No 8-bit characters are currently allowed. If you need to include code points, a suggestion might be to use the unicode convention: U+XXXX, where X is a hexadecimal digit 2. s/Author Identify the author of the report/Author: Identify the author of the report/
Magnus Westerlund Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Ralph Droms) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings) No Objection
Alexey Melnikov No Objection
Comment (2009-06-19 for -)
It would be nice if the document talks about early implementations (as discussed during the IETF LC) and how they my not match the final document being progressed. But I don't think this is a blocker for the document.