Michael,
On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 1:21 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> “This document updates [BRSKI].”
>>
> Actually, in the abstract, it can just say "This document updates
> RFC8995" (no references in the Abstracts are allowed). Also, normally
> when an RFC updates a previous RFC, there will be a section which is
> "Updates to RFC 8995" but I know in this case the updates are
> clarifications, so it less obvious. I was going to leave that to the
> IESG, et al.
I swear I put that exact text into a previous commit, but it's not there.
It's there now in the wicinski-review branch.
I know what you mean here.
I reviewed your branch and if the other authors are good, I am good. thanks for the turnaround.
I can create an Updates to RFC 8995 section, but it's just gonna repeat part
of the Introduction.
Agreed - when I reviewed the document the first time I came to the same conclusion.
tim
--
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
