Hi authors, I am document shepherd for draft-boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac. I am preparing the shepherd writeup and have following questions.
Question 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc; * Referring to https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-10.txt . It seems there a few warnings and errors. Are these resolved? If so, please send a summary. Question 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. * Please confirm this Question 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? * [ISO10589]. Is this reference essential to be part of the RFC? Question 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. - Please comment on following normative RFCs: RFC 8174 category is BCP RFC 7348 category is Informational and is already in DOWNREF registry RFC 3688 category is BCP RFC 2119 category is BCP Question 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Data tracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. * IMO the answer is NO. Please confirm. Reza
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
