Subject: [eppext] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:15:12 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The phrase "Sunrise Period" may be a well-known term of art, but the
meaning isn't obvious in the Abstract. It's explained well with one
sentence in the Introduction - perhaps that sentence could be included in
the abstract as well?

---

From: Gustavo Lozano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:47:14 +0000

Thank you for your review Spencer,

I think that your comment make sense.

@Barry, at this point of the evaluation process: is it a good idea to
upload a new version of the draft with minor updates?, or, should I work
with the RFC editor to make minor changes?

Regards,
Gustavo

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:53:57 -0800

> with the RFC editor to make minor changes?

You'll likely want to do a new version to address Stephen's and Ben's
comments, in addition to these and any others, and version numbers are
cheap and plentiful.  I'd rather give the RFC Editor our final version
for their editing, and not specifically plan to make changes later.

Barry