Is there actually an IETF document that says we are supposed to do
this? It's not that I strongly object to doing it, but it is
redundant with a statement that will be a few lines above the abstract
in the finished RFC, so I am wondering if this is something we are
actually required to do.
Thanks,
Margaret
On Feb 27, 2011, at 6:45 AM, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
OK, We will add a sentence like “This document obsoletes RFC 4742.”
to the abstract.
Cheers,
Mehmet
From: ext Scott W Brim [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 10:41 PM
To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Cc: gen-art; ext Romascanu, Dan (Dan); ext Bert (IETF) Wijnen;
[email protected]
Subject: RE: gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-netconf-
rfc4742bis-07
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
