Subject: RE: [rohc] RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-impl-guide-17.txt

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 07:39:57 +0100

ROHCers,

The target document class for this document will be Standards
Track (PS). Although this does not really make any actual
difference for the document itself, I felt it could then be
a good idea to make use of 2119 language where appropriate.
Earlier in the WG history we had to remove 2119 terminology
from documents targeted for Informational, therefore we 
have been careful with using 2119 in documents which were
not sure to become Standards Track, such as this one.

Anyway, a revision -18 of the draft is now out, with the
only difference from -17 that it makes use of 2119. Please
review this update and let me know if there are more places
where you believe 2119-terminology would make sense. The
diff is of course available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rohc/draft-ietf-rohc-rtp-impl-guide/draft-ietf-
rohc-rtp-impl-guide-18-from-17.diff.html

Thanks!
/L-E

> The draft has been updated to address the comments received
> during WGLC. We are currently discussing with our AD which
> target document class to have for this draft, Standards Track
> or Informational, I'll get back about that later on.
> 
> Cheers,
> /L-E

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc