> -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 6:56 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; dromasca@xxxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf- > regext-rfc7482bis.all@xxxxxxxx; regext@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf- > regext-rfc7482bis-02 > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content > is safe. > > Hi Scott, > > > Dan, thanks for the review. Would you please give me a little more on > > what you think is needed to explain the relationship between the two > > documents? I can't think of much more to say beyond "7482 describes > > protocol queries" and "7483 describes protocol responses to the > > queries described in 7482", but would adding a few sentences to that > > effect in the Introduction do what you're suggesting? Of course, the > > RFC numbers will need to be updated. > > I think the idea was (at least partially) that this, as rfc7482bis, should describe > its relationship with rfc7482-not-bis (e.g., that it obsoletes the latter for > purpose of advancing the protocol to Internet Standard), in both Abstract > and Introduction. The fact that this document is not listed as having an > Obsoletes: relationship to rfc7482 (outside of the shepherd > writeup) makes the question of what exactly the relationship between the > two is much more interesting... [SAH] OK, understood. I can add text to the header, Abstract, and Introduction to note that 7482bis and 7483bis obsolete their predecessors. Scott -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
