Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of DraftShepherdWriteupWgRespComplex

Timestamp:

27/08/12 18:52:50 (11 years ago)

Author:

barryleiba@…

Comment:

--

DraftShepherdWriteupWgRespComplex

@@ -20 +20 @@
 Each author has confirmed conformance with BCP 78/79.  There is one IPR disclosure on the document, not from any of the authors.  When the disclosure was filed, the chairs specifically asked for comments on the mailing list.  They asked again during working group last call.  No comments were made at either time.
 
-=== 4. IANA Considerations ===
-
-The IANA Considerations needed some work, which was done in version -09; I believe it's now clear and ready.  The document creates one new registry, Frodiddle Optimization Parameters.  The authors suggested IETF Review for this, and there was a brief discussion considering Specification Required.  The working group decided that insufficiently reviewed parameters could cause operational problems on the network, and settled on IETF Review to address that.  That also means that no designated expert is needed.
-
 === 5. Other Points ===
 
 There is a normative downref to RFC 9876, "Security Aspects of Hypothetical Biffles".
 
+The IANA Considerations needed some work, which was done in version -09; I believe it's now clear and ready.  The document creates one new registry, Frodiddle Optimization Parameters.  The authors suggested IETF Review for this, and there was a brief discussion considering Specification Required.  The working group decided that insufficiently reviewed parameters could cause operational problems on the network, and settled on IETF Review to address that.  That also means that no designated expert is needed.
+
 As noted above, there's still a lot of discontent about Section 3.14, and any wording changes to that section will likely need to come back to the working group, and will re-open old discussions.  Some people were also not happy with the way consensus judgments were made in regard to that, but we don't anticipate any appeals.