Michael,
On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 1:21 PM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> “This document updates [BRSKI].” > >> > > > Actually, in the abstract, it can just say "This document updates > > RFC8995" (no references in the Abstracts are allowed). Also, > normally > > when an RFC updates a previous RFC, there will be a section which is > > "Updates to RFC 8995" but I know in this case the updates are > > clarifications, so it less obvious. I was going to leave that to the > > IESG, et al. > > I swear I put that exact text into a previous commit, but it's not there. > It's there now in the wicinski-review branch. > I know what you mean here. I reviewed your branch and if the other authors are good, I am good. thanks for the turnaround. I can create an Updates to RFC 8995 section, but it's just gonna repeat part > of the Introduction. > Agreed - when I reviewed the document the first time I came to the same conclusion. tim > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
