>> 'A new ARF reporting field called "Source-Port" is defined.' >> >> That should be header field (see Section 3.2 of RFC 5965). I gather >> that the intent is to make this an optional header field. I suggest >> specifying that Section 3.2 is being updated. That should also be done >> for Section 3.1 of RFC 6591. > > I haven't seen specific section call-outs done in an updating document > before, only > the "Updates" stuff on the title page. Is this necessary?
I've seen it occasionally. I think that if the sense in which B updates A is narrow enough that it's easy to specify what's updated, it's quite useful to say what's updated. I doubt you'll get any DISCUSSes if you don't, but anything that will help the reader make better use of both specs is a good thing. Barry _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
