Document: draft-nottingham-site-meta-03
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Oct 16, 2009
IETF LC End Date: Nov 6, 2009
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a UNKNOWN document.

Note that I am not sure what the intended status of this
document is (hence the "UNKNOWN" above.)  The draft itself appears
to think it is headed for "Informational", but the IETF Tracker
appears to think otherwise -- it thinks that the intended
status is "Proposed Standard" (please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-nottingham-site-meta/).

Other than that, the draft has:

Major issues: 0.
Minor issues: 1.
Nits/editorial comments: 0.

Minor issue:

1) In the past when we have established some of these registries
 (c.f., rfc5341, rfc3969) we have populated these registries
 with "initial values" --- essentially grand-fathering existing
 usages.

 Given that, I am merely curious on whether it makes sense to
 grand-father in the "robots.txt" usage in this draft?  Of
 course, implementations would still search for "robots.txt"
 in the normal location.