|
Greg Newby: 05/06/2007 4:46 AM EDT
|
|
Action: |
Update
resolution changed from PUBLISHED to none (no value)
|
|
Greg Newby: 07/13/2005 1:14 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Mass Update
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Open to Closed
close_date changed from - to 2005-07-12 22:14:42
resolution changed from <None> to PUBLISHED
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Newby: 12/14/2004 9:57 PM EST
|
|
Attachment: |
gfd-i.40.doc
(206 KB)
|
|
Action: |
Update
File Deleted changed from 497: gfd-i.40.pdf to none (no value)
File added set to 509: gfd-i.40.doc
|
|
Greg Newby: 12/14/2004 9:57 PM EST
|
|
Attachment: |
gfd-i.40.doc
(206 KB)
|
|
Action: |
Update
File added set to 508: gfd-i.40.doc
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 12/01/2004 1:26 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Mass Move
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_group changed from DATA to <None>
artifact_status changed from Closed to Open
assigned_to changed from 122 to 100
Category changed from Informational to <None>
group_artifact_id changed from Submit GGF Draft to Published
resolution changed from Published to <None>
|
|
Greg Newby: 11/26/2004 11:22 PM EST
|
|
Attachment: |
gfd-i.40.pdf
(271.67 KB)
|
|
Action: |
Update
File added set to 498: gfd-i.40.pdf
|
|
Greg Newby: 11/26/2004 11:22 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
I was just wondering whether the Survey (this tracker, #982) should be numbered first in the GGF document series, or the Guidelines (tracker #981).
If you think the Guidelines should be first, let us know and we'll renumber them.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Greg Newby: 11/26/2004 11:22 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Final Editor Review to Closed
close_date changed from - to 2004-11-26 19:22:24
Priority changed from 2 to -
resolution changed from <None> to Published
|
|
Greg Newby: 11/26/2004 11:20 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Thanks very much. This looks super, and is now published as GFD #40. Stacey will move the files to their final destination. I appreciate your
diligence on this document!
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Greg Newby: 11/26/2004 11:20 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
File added set to 497: gfd-i.40.pdf
|
|
Rute Sofia: 11/26/2004 6:11 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Final revised version. Changes mentioned on tracker 982 have been made. Some comments:
- on sections 2.2.1/2.4.2:
the example for the literal IPv6 address usage has been added. However, this is a survey and as such simply alerts to the fact that a specification is
/isn't IPv6 compliant. The way that implementations should deal with such issues have already been addressed in the "Guideline for IP version
independence in GGF specifications" draft.
- on section 7., security considerations:
Given that this is a survey on specifications,the comments made on tracker #981 for the guidelines for IP independence draft do not apply here, they
are out of the scope of the document.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Rute Sofia: 11/26/2004 6:11 AM EST
|
|
Attachment: |
draft-ggf-ipv6-ipv4-dependencies-survey-00-rute-25-11-04.doc
(215.5 KB)
|
|
Action: |
Update
File added set to 496: draft-ggf-ipv6-ipv4-dependencies-survey-00-rute-25-11-04.doc
artifact_status changed from Pending Info from Authors to Final Editor Review
resolution changed from Returned to Authors/Group to <None>
|
|
Greg Newby: 11/22/2004 3:25 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
This document is ready to go. I'm making a few small recommendations, to accompany your "Guidelines" document (tracker 981). Please upload a final
document when you're ready.
- update the date in the header.
- consider whether there are really 5 Authors (for the header), or whether there are just one or two Editors and the rest are contributors (for
listing in a later section). It seems that sometimes people list everyone involved in a document as an Author, which is not ideal. An Author (or
Editor) is someone who can vouch for the entire document, and is willing to engage in correspondence & upkeep for the forseeable future. If all 5 are
authors, that's fine - but if not, consider listing just one or two editors, and moving the rest to a Contributor section.
- 1.2 "GRID" - is this an acronym, or just Grid? (There is not yet a standard use of "Grid" versus "grid," but my view is that "Grid" currently means
the (GGF) standards-compliant grid, and "grid" is generic).
- please double-check that all acronyms are written fully on first use
- 2.2.1: could you put an example of correct usage for http://example.com or similar? Ditto for 2.4.2.
- Section 5: the 1st paragraph(s) before the table have some spacing or other issues. It's not clear whether this is three paragraphs missing extra
lines in-between, or whether it's supposed to be one paragraph. Just a little formatting will fix this.
- Section 6: See my comment about security considerations for tracker 981. Might the same apply here? Is there a risk from improper specification of
use of IP versions?
- References: add a blank line after each reference, or outdent each entry.
Go ahead and respond or update, and upload the final version. Thanks for your work on this!
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Greg Newby: 11/22/2004 3:25 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Final Editor Review to Pending Info from Authors
assigned_to changed from 302 to 122
Priority changed from 1 to 2
resolution changed from <None> to Returned to Authors/Group
|
|
Greg Newby: 11/04/2004 7:58 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Pending Info from Authors to Final Editor Review
assigned_to changed from 122 to 302
Priority changed from 4 to 1
resolution changed from Returned to Authors/Group to <None>
|
|
Greg Newby: 11/02/2004 1:11 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
gbn: Sent email to Piers O'Hanlon requesting his feedback on the effectiveness of public comment for this and associated document #981. Status
changed to Awaiting Author Feedback.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Greg Newby: 11/02/2004 1:11 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Public Comment Period to Pending Info from Authors
Priority changed from 3 to 4
resolution changed from <None> to Returned to Authors/Group
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 09/28/2004 3:43 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
No comments have been made regarding this document so it will re-enter public comment period again.
Due date: 10-28-04.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 08/13/2004 10:46 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Document will now enter 30 day public comment period.
Due date: 9-13-04
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 08/13/2004 10:46 AM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from GFSG Review to Public Comment Period
|
|
Charlie Catlett: 08/12/2004 4:21 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
This draft has completed the necessary steps prior to
being made available for public comment. Authors,
working group / research group chairs, and Area
Directors should encourage individuals to participate
in the public comment process and should announce
the public comment availability to appropriate
communities and groups.
Public comments can be viewed and submitted via
the GridForge Editor pages (see Forums) or:
http://www.ggf.org/documents
Public comments play an important part in the advancement
of a GGF draft and publication as a document in the
GGF document series.
An active public comment period strengthens the case
that the document is a useful and desired work product
for some community of consumers.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Charlie Catlett: 08/12/2004 4:21 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
Priority changed from 4 to 3
|
|
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 07/22/2004 11:42 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
This document has already been reviewed by an AD. It will now proceed to GFSG Review.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 07/21/2004 12:53 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Open to AD Review
assigned_to changed from 108 to 278
Priority changed from - to 5
|
|
|
|