Hi Matthew, Weird, RFC7432 is in fact used multiple times. Could it be just that we shouldn't have the space between "RFC" and "7432"?
Old: [RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>. New: [RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN", RFC7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>. Let us know if you want us to republish with just that change. Thanks. Jorge -----Original Message----- From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, July 8, 2019 at 6:05 PM To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Documents shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-06 Hi Jorge Thanks. Please can you double-check the reference to RFC 7342? It appears in your list of normative references, but does not seem to be used in the text. Regards Matthew On 08/07/2019, 09:50, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Matthew, We submitted version 07, which addresses your comments. Thank you very much for reviewing. Jorge -----Original Message----- From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:20 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Documents shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-06 Resent-From: <[email protected]> Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Resent-Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:20 PM Authors I am the document shepherd for this draft. Please see below for my comments. Please treat these as you would any other WG last call comments. Please address these before I submit the document to the IESG for publication. Best regards Matthew General: The draft is well written and generally good to go. I have just a few minor comments. Number of Co-Authors: There are 8 co-authors listed in the document header. Generally, the RFC editor expects this to be limited to 5. Please can you reduce the number, e.g. by moving the less active authors to a major contributors section in the draft. RFC2119 language: There are a couple of cases where you may have intended to capitalise certain keywords. For example, in section 4.4 you write 'recommended' when perhaps 'RECOMMENDED' was intended, and 'not recommended' where 'NOT RECOMMENDED' might be more appropriate. Please go thorough and double-check. Thanks Matthew _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
