Either way it is useful to give the reviewer a heads up as to nits
giving errors and this being OK.
S
On 29/11/2018 14:42, Joe Touch wrote:
They don’t need to be deleted if you include them deliberately. There
is no prohibition on citing such RFCs for your own documents
historical background.
Joe
On Nov 29, 2018, at 4:06 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
But, always worth including a "do be deleted" note to the reviewers
to stop then all sending in feedback about the nits failure.
Stewart
On 27/11/2018 20:42, Joe Touch wrote:
FWIW:
On 2018-11-27 12:22, Ron Bonica wrote:
Fred,
If the NFSv2 and iPERF issues are not blocking, I would like to
omit them. The following are rational:
...
- Mechanically, it is difficult to reference an RFC that has been
obsoleted in an internet draft. The NIT checker complains bitterly.
Those complaints are warnings only to help those who cite such
documents inadvertently; you can simply ignore them. (I do all the
time - esp. for historical discussions that cite early versions of
newer RFCs or historical standards).
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
