I think the BCP 14 citation in the module itself is fine, and probably even necessary. It's the prose in the document itself where you could get rid of it.
But again, up to you. -MSK On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 1:50 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Murray, > > On 8/12/21, 3:14 AM, "Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't think you need the BCP 14 boilerplate in the prose part of this > document. You have exactly one of its keywords, at the bottom of > Section 4.4, > and you could find a way to say that normatively without bringing in > BCP 14. > Your choice, of course. > > But we have a number of normative statements in the > ietf-routing-policy.yang itself. We think it is better to leave the > reference. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
