Hi David, Thanks for reviewing the document. I would say that we need to update the idnits tool :)
Had reviewed several drafts recently in similar situation. The location preference of text about 'obsoleting RFC' is Introduction, not Abstract. Thanks Joseph On 2011-11-14, at 1:57 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive. > > Summary: > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be > fixed before publication. > > I originally performed a Gen-ART review on the -07 version of this draft in > 2010; the comments from that review were sufficiently resolved in the -08 and > -09 versions, and remain resolved in the current -12 version. I did not see > anything new in the changes from -09 to -12 that requires attention. > > idnits 2.12.12 found a couple of things for the abstract: > > -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC5504, but the > abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. > > -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4952, but the > abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC4952 > though, so this could be OK. > > > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
