Hi Tom,
Thanks for clarifying this, now we completely understand these two comments. We will update the next version of the draft accordingly.
Regards,
Fernando.
El mié., 23 sept. 2020 a las 12:39, tom petch (<daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
On 23/09/2020 07:16, Fernando Pereñíguez García wrote:
> Hi Tero,
>
> Thank you very much for your clarification. We will update reference RFC
> 822 accordingly in our draft.
>
> Tom, you proposed us to replace RFC 822 with 2822, but it is also obsoleted
> by 5322. So, if you agree, we will reference RFC 5322 instead.
That is fine by me; my comment was that RFC822 is obsoleted by RCC2822
so you should consider a more up-to-date version not that RFC2822 was
the correct update!
You said previously that you did not understand my comment on RFC6020 in
IANA Considerations. It is fine. What I was trying to say is that in
most places, RFC7950 is the better reference so RFC6020 should not be
used but for IANA Considerations, RFC6020 is the better reference so
when updating elsewhere in the I-D, leave IANA Considerations alone.
Tom Petch
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Pereñíguez García, PhDDepartment of Sciences and Informatics
University Defense Center, (CUD), Spanish Air Force Academy, MDE-UPCT
C/ Coronel Lopez Peña, s/n, 30720, San Javier, Murcia - SPAIN
Tel: +34 968 189 946 Fax: +34 968 189 970
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
