I'll let Olaf comment on most of these issues, but wanted to respond to one:
Dave Thaler wrote:
3) There is a normative reference to an Internet Draft dated August 2004 (rfc2223bis). I would propose removing the reference to that draft, and just referencing RFC 2223. (The RFC Editor will of course update the reference during publication to the most recent RFC at that time.)
I searched for instances of 2223 in the document, and believe the current text is fine. (I wasn't clear, from the above, whether you thought it was okay as is, or wanted to do further surgery). The issue with 2223bis is that it a) is significantly different than RFC2223, b) has been languishing for quite a while (a lot longer than since 2004) and c) has nevertheless been a guiding document in spite of its status. So, I don't believe you can just drop mention of it. The current text refers to RFC2223 and its successors, and that seems about right. Leslie. _______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
