Sounds very good! I think that you can say RFCXXX in the Abstract (as you say that this RFC obsoletes RFCYYY). If not, the RFC editor will rephrase it to best possible alternative. Cheers, Orit.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Henderson [mailto:t...@tomh.org] > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 2:18 PM > To: Orit Levin <or...@microsoft.com>; Gonzalo Camarillo > <gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com>; draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis....@ietf.org > Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12 > > On 09/09/2016 02:02 PM, Orit Levin wrote: > > Hi Tom, I am really sorry that you didn't get the original email. I > > didn't sent it directly to the authors assuming that > > draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis....@ietf.org contains authors' names... > > > > I read your reply and looked at the diff between -12 and -13. I agree > > and like your changes - thank you very much! The only nit is that I > > would add the reference to the mulihoming draft/RFC in the Abstract > > (as in you did in your reply) instead of saying "elsewhere" (as in > > -13). > > The only reason I refrained from doing so was that I was uncertain about > whether Abstracts should contain citations. If you can confirm that it > OK, I will add it there too. > > > > > Unfortunately Gonzalo's email got trimmed so I am including the rest > > of my comments below. Hopefully it will not take much time to go over > > them. > > > > > Thanks, I will review and publish a revision based on them. > > - Tom _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
