Ted Lemon via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > In my previous review, I noted a few points that were not addressed > from my first review of the document during IETF last call. None of > these points have since been addressed. As I said in the previous > review, these were all nits, and so I don't think there's any need to > address them. However, I will point out that several area directors > asked for these nits to be addressed.
Hi, we have posted -15 of this document. We removed the graph theory content, even though it was a verbatim copy from RFC8499. Warren that was your request. A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-acme-integrations-15 We also think that we have already (in -14) dealt with the concerns that John had about the BCP14 language. The document went through the WG and is now standards track. Could you please remove your DISCUSS now? We think that the document is done. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
