[NNTP] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nntpext-authinfo and
draft-ietf-nntpext-tls-nntp
Scott Hollenbeck
sah at 428cobrajet.net
Tue May 24 07:47:28 PDT 2005
draft-ietf-nntpext-authinfo and draft-ietf-nntpext-tls-nntp are related
closely enough that I will have the IESG consider both documents on one
ballot. That being the case, they will be evaluated and last-called as a
pair. Here are my pre-last call evaluation comments:
draft-ietf-nntpext-authinfo
Abstract: an abstract must be able to stand in isolation from the rest of
the spec, so references shouldn't be included. Please replace [NNTP] with
"(NNTP)", [NNTP-COMMON] with "RFC 2980", and [SASL] with "(SASL)".
Section 8.2: The UTF-8 reference should be normative. It's cited as a MUST
in section 2.3.2.
draft-ietf-nntpext-tls-nntp
Abstract: an abstract must be able to stand in isolation from the rest of
the spec, so references shouldn't be included. Please replace [NNTP] with
"(NNTP)" and [TLS] with "(TLS)".
Both documents:
Please consider updating the [ABNF] reference to use
draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis instead of RFC 2234. The IESG recently
approved draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis to obsolete 2234. It's in the RFC
Editor queue.
None of these are significant. I will start the last call. Please consider
these in the same context as any other comments received during the last
call process.
These are all VERY good looking specifications! I know it has taken a
while, but the group has done some good work.
-Scott-
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list