Michael,
On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 12:31 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim wrote:
> This document says it "Updates 8995" yet there is no section in the document
> with the updates to 8955. This is usually the case.
Well, it's the Introduction. 8995 left a socket to be filled, and this
document fills it. There are no changes to 8995 in the sense that an
implementation that implements 8995 does not need to change unless they want this.
Does this make you happier?
https://github.com/anima-wg/brski-cloud/pull/new/updates-8995
It's not me, it's the nits tool (and the RPC) which does not like references in the abstract (years of shepherding documents have beaten this into me).
But it works.
tim
Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I had advised Michael of the same, and he did add it in the
> Introduction section, last paragraph, except, you will not see it
> referenced as [RFC8995], but rather [BRSKI].
> One thing I did forget to mention to him was to the same for the Abstract, except there he does not need to provide an explanation. So a statement that says:
> “This document updates [BRSKI].”
Done.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
