Permalink
Browse files

revise 5987bis writeup

  • Loading branch information...
1 parent 70a7c47 commit b963ec1bd555760c421ba321df0432d467ed41fe @mnot mnot committed Dec 9, 2016
Showing with 9 additions and 11 deletions.
  1. +9 −11 writeups/5987bis.md
View
@@ -10,21 +10,19 @@ in parameters inside Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) header field v
document specifies an encoding suitable for use in HTTP header fields that is compatible with a
simplified profile of the encoding defined in RFC 2231.
-Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's abstract is usually good for this), and why the working group has chosen the requested publication type (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).
+Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's abstract is usually good for
+this), and why the working group has chosen the requested publication type (BCP, Proposed Standard,
+Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic).
+
## 2. Review and Consensus
-Explain how actively the document was reviewed and discussed, by the working group and external parties, and explain in a general sense how much of the interested community is behind the document. Explain anything notable about the discussion of the document.
+This is a bis document that seeks to revise a document the WG published in the past. Because of
+that, it has received attention and review from a small set of active WG members. However, none of
+the document changes are controversial.
-(In this section, tell the IESG whether there was review by a small number of interested folks within the working group, a lively long term discussion by large numbers of working group participants, and whether there was quick and broad consensus or several issues for which the consensus was "rough". Cite significant points of difficulty or controversy, and explain how they were resolved. Mention any reviews done by directorates, review teams, expert reviews, reviews from other SDOs, and whether there you think other specific groups should do further review. Consider, for example, reviews from the perspective of security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization. You should also describe any specific concerns or issues that the document shepherd has with this document or with the working group process related to it that the responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of. Note known implementation plans or any current implementations. If there are no plans for implementation, explain why this document is valuable in spite of that.)
## 3. Intellectual Property
-The author has confirmed that to their direct, personal knowlege, all IPR related to this document has already been disclosed.
-
-
-## 4. Other Points
-
-* Is the correct RFC type indicated in the title page header?
-* Is the abstract both brief and sufficient, and does it stand alone as a brief summary?
-
+The author has confirmed that to their direct, personal knowlege, all IPR related to this document
+has already been disclosed.

0 comments on commit b963ec1

Please sign in to comment.