Thanks Mahesh, that helps, it makes sense. From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 8 July 2025 at 00:21 To: Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmgash=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: Gunter van de Velde <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tl...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tl...@ietf.org>, opsawg-cha...@ietf.org <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>, opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: Gunter Van de Velde's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-23: (with COMMENT) Hi Douglas,
On Jul 4, 2025, at 2:36 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) <dcmgash=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:dcmgash=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Agreed, we will use this, however, one caveat, I understand that we should not make references in the abstract, so I think we need to just remove the clause “defined in RFC 8907”: Just a note. When it says not to have references in the abstract, what it is referring to is references using hyperlink. A textual reference to an RFC (without square braces) is fine. Cheers. Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
