On 10/14/2011 9:28 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
could the chairs please pass $subject to the iesg? i am only aware of
one possible issue raised in wglc, tp asked for a hyphen somewhere but
did not respond to my asking him to be specific where. if this mystery
is solved, i presume it can be handled in the iesg or auth48.
I believe Tom's issue was addressed in conversation (with mr weiler?),
but if not probably we can catch the problem in IESG review comment
recovery :)
cool
(If the authors could wrangle:
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2385 (Obsoleted by RFC 5925)
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4808
that'd be helpful to the process, again these can be caught in the
IESG review fixups as well)
see -18 going up now
RFC 2385 references should not be replaced with RFC 5925; they're
incorrect as currently written (in -18); they refer to sections and text
that don't exist in RFC 5925 (e.g., how to configure TCP MD5)y.
This doc deliberately cites an obsoleted doc; the best solution would be
to ask the RFC-Editor whether it's preferable to leave it in the
normative section or move it to informative. Either way, the reference
should remain directly to 2385 when TCP MD5 is discussed.
Joe
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
