Thanks for the review, Jim. Regarding the warning about pre-RFC5378 work, I think it might not apply in this case, since AFAICT there isn’t substantial material from RFC 5440 incorporated into the present document. But of course, the authors should consider this and make their own determination.
The other two nits should be fixed, I’m sorry I didn’t catch these in my own review. —John > On Jun 19, 2023, at 10:42 AM, Jim Guichard via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: ... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > === Comments === > > - from idnits -> The draft header indicates that this document updates > RFC5440, > but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. > > - from idnits - the authors should check the miscellaneous warnings, > especially > paying attention to the comments re: RFC 5378. I do not see anything in the > shepherd write-up about this. > > - Section 9 - Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7525 (Obsoleted by RFC 9325) _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
