> On 15 Oct 2015, at 2:02 AM, Samuel Weiler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We were about to ask the WG chairs for a WG Last Call on this document, but >> then noticed that this is an informational document and its attempting to >> update a standards track RFC > > Changing the "intended status" of a doc seems easier than spinning a new one. > In any case, I would prefer to see the change and the context for it kept > together. > > Also, both/either document would benefit from a more meaningful abstract and > intro. At the very least, briefly explain _what_ is being changed. (The > abstract and intro of the current WG doc hint at "why", but still don't say > "what". The new doc does neither.) >
“The new doc does neither” You are joking - right? Lets see - the Abstract states: "This document updates the RPKI certificate validation procedure as specified in Section 7.2 of RFC6487." And the introduction states: "This document updates the RPKI certificate validation procedure as specified in Section 7.2 of [RFC6487], by replacing the section 7.2 of [RFC6487] with the specification contained here.” I believe that this is a very clear, concise and accurate description of WHAT is being changed. i.e. go look up section 7.2 of RFC6487 and replace it with the procedure described in this document. What exactly gives you a problem with such a explanation of the proposed update to the RPKI validation procedure? Geoff _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
