Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-01

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 18:28:09 -0700

Hi Roni,

My apologies, I completely missed your review.

On 26/04/11 6:22 PM, "Roni Even" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
>  
> Major issues:
>  
>  
> Minor issues:
> This is more out of curiosity
> 1.       Why not include it in draft-ietf-grow-mrt-14

I took the stance that the extended additions in geo-mrt may not be the norm
in implementation and sliding the work into draft-ietf-grow-mrt will confuse
more than help.

> 2.  Why is it an Informational RFC and not standard track like the mrt draft.
>  

There was discussion at the time of making draft-ietf-grow-mrt
informational. I took this on board and indeed as of a -14
draft-ietf-grow-mrt is informational

>  
>  
> Nits/editorial comments:
>  
> 1.       Need to expand MRT when first mentioned.
>  

I believe these have been fixed in response to Dave Crocker's Apps Area
Review.

Cheers
Terry