> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-redaction > > * Section 3.3, 1st paragraph > I'd s/could be used/can be used/. I'm not sure on the exact meaning of > "incumbent"; as that concept is better explained in the last paragraph > of Appendix A, the second sentence here may be redundant.
I think "could" is fine here. What's in Appendix A gives an example of what the second sentence describes, so I think it's also fine that this stays in. > * Section 3.3, 2nd paragraph > The reference seems incorrect. Isn't it RFC 6449 that describes the > establishment of bilateral agreements between report producers and > consumers? Section 8.2 of [ARF] talks about them (third paragraph), but so does RFC6449 (of course). I'll add the reference. > This I-D expands section 8.5 of RFC 5965. A reverse-reference should > be written as such, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMEFROM :-) The best we could do would be to mark RFC5965 as updated by this one, but to do that this one would have to be Standards Track (a lower-status document can't update a higher-status one). I don’t think that'll fly here. Otherwise, I think the text in the Introduction already serves this purpose. Thanks, -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
