Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker-13

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:40:09 +0100

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-hoffman-alt-streams-tracker-13
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 2011-04-29
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

2.1.  States for the IAB Stream

    o  Dead IAB Document -- This document was an active IAB document, but
       for some reason it is no longer being pursued for the IAB stream.
       It is possible that the document might be revived later.

Is it worth adding:
  ", possibly in another stream"

to make the text the same with a similar text in Section 3.1:

3.1.  States for the IRTF Stream

    o  Dead IRTF Document -- This document was an active IRTF document,
       but for some reason it is no longer being pursued for the IRTF
       stream.  It is possible that the document might be revived later,
       possibly in another stream.

?

4.1.  States for the Independent Submission Stream

    o  No Longer In Independent Submission Stream -- This document was
       actively considered in the Independent Submission stream, but the
       ISE chose not to publish it.  It is possible that the document
       might be revived later.

I think it would be good to mention here that the reason should be 
recorded in the comments, because this state seems to cover both 
abandoning the document and moving it to another stream.

ID-nits reports:

   Miscellaneous warnings:
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   -- The document has a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first
      submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  Does it really need the
      disclaimer?

   Checking references for intended status: Informational
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   == Outdated reference: draft-juskevicius-datatracker-wgdocstate-reqts has
      been published as RFC 6175

   == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states has been
      published as RFC 6174

RFC Editor usually fixes these automatically, but if you are going to 
revise the draft, you might as well fix these at the same time.