On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:34:10AM +0000, tom petch wrote: > On 23/11/2020 17:27, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > > Examples are IPv4 only, IPv6 would be good > > > > BGP is included when it comes to defining a router-id but is ignored > > everywhere else, such as signalling MSD, protocol extensions etc > > > > reference "RFC XXXX" would be improved by including the title in all > > cases not just some > > > > the scheme http: appears in many places. It would be lovely if this > > really was the scheme but I fear that it is not > > <acee> > > This is directly from the RFC 8407 template in Appendix B. What would you > > suggest? > > <tp> > Many I-D do now specify https: since that is now the only option > supported by the IETF; I have seen this called for by an AD.
I think we have typically been using https: in recent RFCs, but we should probably write a (very short) draft to update 8407 and the template therein. Any volunteers? -Ben _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
