RE: Review Period Reminder

Hi James,

> >1) Status of this memo section needs to be updated with new=20
> boilerplate.
>=20
> OK. Where is this?

These are related to these RFCs:

3667 IETF Rights in Contributions. S. Bradner. February 2004. (Format:
     TXT=3D43297 bytes) (Updates RFC2026) (Also BCP0078) (Status: BEST
     CURRENT PRACTICE)

3668 Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology. S. Bradner.
     February 2004. (Format: TXT=3D41365 bytes) (Updates RFC2026, =
RFC2028)
     (Also BCP0079) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)

3669 Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property Issues. S.
     Brim. February 2004. (Format: TXT=3D40946 bytes) (Status:
     INFORMATIONAL)


http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html


> > 2) Abstract margins need fixing.
>=20
> OK.
>=20
> > 3) Needs IPR text
>=20
> My understanding is that IPR text isn't needed unless there are IPR
> considerations. As this document is purely instructions to IANA, there
> aren't.

I understood, but I could be wrong, that all RFCs should have this kind =
of text:

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/boilerplate.txt
=20
> > 4) Is this a protocol document or a information document? If it is
> >   info, then probably keywords (MUST; SHOULD; MAY, etc) shouldn't
> >   be used.
>=20
> I'll ask Allison. I've heard two stories on this, one that an =
informational
> or experimental document may have such normative text and others that =
it
> shouldn't. The doc is really just informational.

OK.
=20
> > 5) Section 5.2 - are these all of the possible L2
>=20
> No, there are possibly more, which is why the registry is being =
established.
> For example, 802.16 might be a possibility in the future. And there =
might be
> others in the future. Was there something you thing needed changing =
here?

Nothing specific, just wondering.

John