I agree.
Mike
On 17/12/2013 14:52, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Dan -
Thanx for the review.
I have no objection to your suggestion. I would hope this change can be done by
the RFC Editor.
Les
-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 5:35 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic-00
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 Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic-00
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 12/17/13
IETF LC End Date: 12/24/13
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: Ready
Major issues:
Minor issues:
It may be more cautious refer to the 'latest available' version of the IS-IS
standard as we cannot be completely sure that the Second Edition will also be
the very last one. Suggested change in Section 1:
OLD:
All references to IS-IS should be to ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second
Edition and RFC 1142 is only of historic interest.
NEW:
All references to IS-IS should be to the latest edition of the IS-IS
standard (currently ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second
Edition) and RFC 1142 is only of historic interest.
Nits/editorial comments:
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
