RE: draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-05.txt review (Was: Re: Pls review documents on IESG Agenda for September 1, 2005)

[Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>]

(Added chairs to email list)
At 2:59 PM -0500 8/30/05, Pete Resnick wrote:
>On 8/30/05 at 8:55 PM +0200, Bert (Bert) Wijnen wrote:
>
>>>the ABNF compiler reports that "_" is not a legal character in a rulename. Suggest s/_/-/
>>
>>A DISCUSS was raised for this same issues has been raised by Scott Hollenbeck (one of the APPS ADs).  So I am going to assume that that DISCUSS will result in a fix.
>
>Already fixed in my version. I'll submit that change after Last Call terminates.

Last Call terminated July 25th.  Would you be okay with this being done
in an RFC Editor note?  Seems like an easy enough thing to fix that way.

>Also in the DISCUSS comments was:
>
>>The documents contain normative references to RFC 2234, which has been obsoleted.  It's replacement (draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis) is in the RFC Editor queue.  References to 2234 should probably be replaced with references to 2234bis.
>
>I'd prefer not to have a REF hold on this document in the RFC Editor queue. How about I change it to 2234bis if that document is out of the queue before this one goes in?

Would anyone scream if this got handled in AUTH48?  I believe that the RFC Editor
will handle it if the new ABNF doc is already out, but the authors can check in
AUTH48.  Obviously, if this somehow beats 2234bis out, the 2234 reference is
still valid.
		regards,
			Ted