Hi Mahesh, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. To clarify, we understand that the examples were not discussed in the working group and would be happy to provide some examples for discussion at a later date (separately from this document).
Thanks, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Feb 20, 2026, at 10:59 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Since there seems to be a strong desire to fix this, Kent, as a shepherd, > would you have a problem pulling this document out of the RFC Editor queue, > having a quick discussion in the WG around just this change, doing a short > consensus call and sending it back to me. No other change should be > entertained at this point. > > In the above example, in my opinion (as a individual contributor) > > - a reference should be provided when referring to a RFC, rather than burying > it in the description statement. That reference should come in the form of a > “RFC XXXX: <Title of the RFC> > - a Section should be referenced by its number > > Having the title of the draft helps those who do not have a map of RFC > numbers to titles. YANG modules outside the draft, do not have luxury of the > Normative/Informative References sections being available handily. -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
