Thanks for your review and suggestions, John. > - I think the document still need to have the first-page header "Updates: > 4187". My understanding of Obsoletes is that it replaces the older document > and that the new document can be used alone without reference to the older > document. > > - Section 1 "is an update to RFC 5448." > I think the word update is a bit confusing as the documents obsoletes RFC > 5448.
Yes. Fixed in my working group (to be submitted as -01 before the deadlines). > - "2008 version" and "5G version", I think it is better to talk about > Releases here, i.e. Release 8 and 15. Also "that reference"?. Suggestion: > > "RFC 5448 referred to the Release 8 version of [TS-3GPP.24.302] and this > update refers to the the first 5G version, Release 15.” Yes. Your suggestion works for me. > - "reaching their final Release 15 status" > What is meant with final here? 3GPP are stable at some point, but the > specifications in a release are never final…. It is a bit fuzzy given the differences in publication styles. I changed the wording to: Editor's Note: The publication of this RFC depends on its normative references [TS-3GPP.24.302] and [TS-3GPP.33.501] reaching a stable status for Release 15, as indicated by 3GPP. This is expected to happen shortly. > - Section 2 should follow RFC 8174 and say: > > "The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL > NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", > "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as > described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they > appear in all capitals, as shown here." > > - RFC 5226 has been obsoleted by RFC 8126 > > - [FIPS.180-2.2002] has been superseeded by FIPS 180-4 Yes. I have changed these, and pointed out the change in the “Changes from RFC 5448” section. > - As 23.501, 24.302, and 33.501 points to the Release 15 version, I think all > the other 3GPP specifications 33.102, 33.402, etc. should refer to Rel-15 as > well. The technical specifications in a Release are meant to be used > together. Ok. > - "[FIPS.180-1.1995]", this reference is not needed, SHA-1 is also defined > (without changes) in FIPS 180-2, 180-3, and 180-4 Ack. > - The third column in the table in Section 8.3 is not aligned. Fixed. Jari _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
