You are correct, it might be clearer to keep it. Yours, Daniel
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:29 AM Olaf Bergmann <bergm...@tzi.org> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for pushing this document forward. > > On 2022-09-16, Daniel Migault <mglt.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > There two nits to address before the draft can be moved forward . > > > > ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC9202]), which it > > shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of > the > > documents in question. > > Okay, I will fix this. > > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6347 (Obsoleted by RFC 9147) > > The full text reads: > > [RFC9202] only specifies the use of DTLS [RFC6347] [RFC9147] but > works equally well for TLS [RFC8446]. > > The reference to DTLS version 1.2 is explicitly included because RFC > 9202 specifies the use of DTLS version 1.2 (and mentions that DTLS > version 1.3 can be used instead). > > I am happy to delete the reference to DTLS 1.2 but I am wondering if > this could lead to confusion? > > Grüße > Olaf > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
