Re: [Gen-art] Telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18

[Paul Kyzivat]

On 10/12/16 12:55 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:

Hi,

thanks for the review!

On 2016-10-11, at 21:21, Paul Kyzivat  wrote:

(1) NIT: "RTT" is used without definition. (There used to be a definition but 
it has been removed.)


I think this can be addressed by an RFC Editor Note.


Sure.


(2) NIT: unlinked references

I found a number of cases where, in the html format, references are not 
hyperlinked:

[RFC4342] section 3
[RFC6679] section 3.1.7
[RFC1981] section 3.2
[RFC6935] section 3.4.1


As mentioned before, these are due to bugs in the rfcmarkup tool. Please file a 
bug report.


Sorry - I forgot you mentioned this before.

Thanks,
Paul



___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18

[Eggert, Lars]

Hi,

thanks for the review!

On 2016-10-11, at 21:21, Paul Kyzivat  wrote:
> (1) NIT: "RTT" is used without definition. (There used to be a definition but 
> it has been removed.)

I think this can be addressed by an RFC Editor Note.

> (2) NIT: unlinked references
> 
> I found a number of cases where, in the html format, references are not 
> hyperlinked:
> 
> [RFC4342] section 3
> [RFC6679] section 3.1.7
> [RFC1981] section 3.2
> [RFC6935] section 3.4.1

As mentioned before, these are due to bugs in the rfcmarkup tool. Please file a 
bug report.

Lars

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art