44 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
44 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
Technical Summary
|
|
|
|
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
|
|
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
|
|
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
|
|
or introduction.
|
|
|
|
Working Group Summary
|
|
|
|
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
|
|
For example, was there controversy about particular points
|
|
or were there decisions where the consensus was
|
|
particularly rough?
|
|
|
|
Document Quality
|
|
|
|
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
|
|
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
|
|
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
|
|
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
|
|
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
|
|
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
|
|
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
|
|
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
|
|
Review, on what date was the request posted?
|
|
|
|
Personnel
|
|
|
|
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
|
|
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA
|
|
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
|
|
in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'
|
|
|
|
RFC Editor Note
|
|
|
|
(Insert RFC Editor Note here or remove section)
|
|
|
|
IANA Note
|
|
|
|
(Insert IANA Note here or remove section)
|
|
|
|
|