I guess at some point someone who deals with standards track docs wanted it mentioned in the abstract as well. Whatever you and the experts all decide is fine with me.
Scott [Sent from my mobile.] On Feb 26, 2011 3:26 PM, "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Scott, > > the header actually indicates clearly that this draft "Obsoletes: 4742". > > I am not really sure why the additional statement is necessary. > > Cheers, > Mehmet Ersue > (Document shepherd) > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ext Scott W Brim [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 3:18 PM >> To: gen-art; [email protected]; Ersue, >> Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) >> Subject: gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc4742bis-07 >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd >> or AD before posting a new version of the draft. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-netconf-4742bis-07 >> Reviewer: Scott Brim >> Review Date: 2011-02-26 >> IETF LC End Date: 2011-02-16 >> IESG Telechat date: 2011-03-03 >> >> Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits >> that should be fixed before publication. >> >> Major issues: >> >> Minor issues: >> >> One IDnit, which is a good idea: "The draft header indicates that this >> document obsoletes RFC4742, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention >> this, which it should."
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
