I would hope it would be evident from context, but sure. Joe
> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:37 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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]> 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
