Tom, > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:08 PM > To: Rainer Gerhards; syslog > Subject: While you are at it ... > > I suggest the following changes > > a) Update the boiler plates - new ones mandatory from next month
done > > b) RFC9999 I find confusing, irritating even; normative > references to I-Ds is > elementary RFC-editing, they deal with it every day; put in > the I-D name and > trust the editor to sort it out:-) As far as I have been told, the way it currently is is the way to do it. Once it is through the last call, *I* will get a last editing chance at which time this is replaced by the actual RFC 1. As far as I've been told, a normative RFC must only refer to other RFCs, not I-Ds. If it does, it won't be normative until the other I-D has become an RFC. > > c) RFC 2373 has a new I-D in last call; I think that that > should be referenced. see above > > d) 10.2 references 'time'; 7 has 'timequality' changed > > e) 10.1 has monotonically (which I do not think you mean - > see previous essay) changed ;) > > f) 9 is to be removed by the RFC editor; do we then go from 8 > to 10 or does he > renumber 10, 11 etc? Seriously, this should be the last > section, or, if you > follow b), then remove it. see above - it's automatically generated by xml2rfc, so the renumbering should be no issue. Anyhow, I've put it to the last content section, which (by xml2rfc design) is in front of the references (section 13). > > g) What is the relationship of this to RFC 3164? I was > expecting to see > something about this on the first page. I already placed some text there based on some other comments. This strengthes the point its good to do so. You'll see when I publish the I-D (hopefully very soon). Rainer > > Tom Petch > > _______________________________________________ Syslog-sec mailing list Syslog-sec@www.employees.org http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec
