Thanks for the response! Comments below, eliding the bits I think need no further comment.
On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Scott Rose wrote: > Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it? That would resolve my concern, if it fits with the intent of the work group. > > As for the nits: > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > Yes, will correct. > > -- ..., 7th paragraph: "...replaced with the word "DELETED"." > > Won't that just leave the word "deleted" hanging on page without explanation? > Wouldn't it be better to just simply delete it? > > > Maybe, but I think the logic was that if there is some text there (just > something), it can be cleanly referenced (i.e. "DELETED [RFCXXXX]")if someone > is making a revised version of the RFC for some purpose. Purely deleting it > accomplishes the task, but this provides a good "hook" for a paper trail. > Okay. On reflection, it's not like we really render the updates the old RFC documents. > Scott > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
