Hi Padma, The WG last call has completed. Please republish the draft with the changes. Thanks, Acee
From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:05 PM To: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Padmadevi Pillay Esnault <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-05 Yingzhen Thank you for your comment. Will respin the draft to address them. Padma From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 3:17 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [Lsr] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-05 Dear authors, I’m assigned to do the shepherd review for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-05. The following question needs to be answered in the review: (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-05 does change RFC 2328, and this needs to be added in the title pager header, the abstract, and introduction. So please do an update version of the draft to include the required changes. Also, please fix the nits in the abstract: “however it will not used as a transit router.”. Thanks, Yingzhen
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
