Hi Jim, Thank you for the review. I've made the following changes locally and will be pushing with the next revision:
- Updated abstract to remark document updates RFC5440. - Changed RFC7525 reference to RFC9325. - Fixed the non-ascii text. New nits result: Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Regarding reference to work pre-RFC5378, too be honest I'm having difficulty navigating through (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) and the related TLP to determine what would constitute requiring a disclaimer. In general I agree with John in that there isn't substantial material directly from RFC5440, beyond the one sentence reference quote in section 4.1. Thanks Andrew On 2023-06-19, 3:03 PM, "John Scudder" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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] > <mailto:[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
