Subject: [AVT] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-avt-text-red-02.txt

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:03:19 +0100

This is to announce a working group last call on the "Registration of 
the text/red MIME Sub-Type" (draft-ietf-avt-text-red-02.txt).
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-text-red-02.txt

Please send any final comments on this draft to the mailing list by
Thursday the 8th April 2004.
At that time, we will consider if it is appropriate to request
publication of this draft as a proposed standard RFC.

Note that this draft will not be advanced until we receive at least one
valid review from someone not directly involved with production of the
draft (i.e., not an author or a major contributor).

Regards

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.

E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:02:26 +0100

Hi Paul,

When I reviewed for the WG last call I found a few minor issues which 
will need to be corrected in an update after the WG last call. However 
they where so minor that I don't see how they affect the WG last call.

Also my comments does not count to the at least one reviewer rule. It is 
the task of the author to ensure that at least one person do a review.

Comments:

1. First page, left side of the header: It should read "Network Working 
Group" of historic reasons rather than "AVT Working Group".

2. In the "status of this memo" I don't think the intention is for the 
author to remove the "(we)" that are part of the boilerplate text, even 
when you are a single person. It is more important that it is the right 
text, than correctly correspond to if there is a single or more 
authors/contributors.

3. The RFC editor note should be moved to somewhere after the abstract.

Cheers

Magnus

Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> This communication is confidential and intended solely for the 
> addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution 
> is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in 
> error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and 
> delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.
> 
> E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, 
> interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only 
> send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any 
> such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any 
> consequences thereof.
> 
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:25:58 -0500

Magnus,

> the task of the author to ensure that at least one person do a review.

Who should that person be?  Gunnar Hellstrom would likely be happy to review
that document.  However, since he's closely associated with this activity,
perhaps you prefer to have a different person.  Please advise, as I'm not
familiar with this rule.

> Group" of historic reasons rather than "AVT Working Group".

OK.. no problem.

> text, than correctly correspond to if there is a single or more

OK.. I've re-inserted the "I (we)" style of phrasing.

> 3. The RFC editor note should be moved to somewhere after the abstract.

OK.. I've moved it into the abstract.  Actually.. there is really no good
place for this :-)

I'll hold this document pending any further comments during the last call
and publish an update when advised.

Paul

> > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error,
please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the
message without disclosing it. Thank you.
interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only
send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such
corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any
consequences thereof.