> In my opinion, this document adds new requirements or at least new > considerations for implementations of RFC1997, I think that means it > updates RFC1997. I liked to see it have "Updates: 1997" metadata added and > appropriate statements in the Abstract and Intro. I think this requires and > justifies it being Standards Track. > > In both the Abstract and the 2nd paragraph of the Introduction,
i have no dog in this fight. in general, i try to focus on the protein of the document, and leave grammar tweaks, what form of 2119 to use, etc. to the rfc editor, and weighty decisions such as this to the iesg. the bikeshed will, of course, be magenta comic sans :) randy _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
