On 11/05/2013 04:58, Stig Venaas wrote: > On 5/10/2013 8:12 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: >> Thanks Bing - >> >> The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of >> referencing Tim's expired draft. > > So the solution is to not reference it? I see the name of the draft is > mentioned in the acknowledgments as: > [draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout]. > > Shouldn't it then be an informational reference? It doesn't make sense > to me to mention a draft in the text and not have a reference.
YMMV, but I expect the RFC Editor will resolve this. Brian
