Hi, I don't think that our documents reference the guidelines document, and I don't think they need to. RFC 7223 does not reference RFC 6087, for example.
/martin Qin Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > I have read this draft and believe it is ready for publication. > One question I have is why rfc7223bis not reference NMDA guidelines since it > get in line with NMDA guideline, or NMDA guideline has been > merged into rfc6087bis? > Should this draft reference rfc6087bis? > > -Qin > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Kent Watsen > 发送时间: 2017年11月29日 3:29 > 收件人: [email protected] > 抄送: [email protected] > 主题: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00 > > All, > > This starts a two-week working group last call on > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00. > > Please recall that this update's intention is to modify the YANG module to be > in line with the NMDA guidelines [1]. Reviewing the diff between the two > drafts [2] should reveal just this. > > The working group last call ends on December 12. > Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list. > > Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready > for publication", are welcome! > This is useful and important, even from authors. > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01 > [2] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00.txt > > Thank you, > Netmod Chairs > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
