In your previous mail you wrote: > Thanks, Francis, for the review. > > > first a meta-question: should this kind of documents refer to its > > parent, RFC 6237 (same subject but RFC 6237 is Experimental, the > > I-D is for Standards Track)? IMHO it should not (so the I-D is > > right) because this will be (only) mentioned in the RFC index. > > I'm not sure what you're asking: do you mean to muse about whether the > predecessor document should appear in the references section?
=> yes > If so, > I agree with your conclusion: it shouldn't... because the predecessor > document will be made obsolete by this one, and because there's > nothing in the predecessor to which this is referring (except to its > existence). => it is my reasonning too (and the fact there is a predecessor is in the RFC Index so is not lost). > > - ToC page 2 and 9 page 11: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments > > Doh! I've fixed the spelling in my working version; thanks. Thanks [email protected] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
