This draft is marked with an "Updates:" relationship to RFC 6486 both in the document header and in the shepherd writeup. But the actual contents of the document contain substantial portions of text that are identical to RFC 6486, as would be expected from a "bis" document (per the draft name) that would replace entirely the original RFC; that relationship is typically indicated by an "Obsoletes:" relationship rather than "Updates:". Also, I would recommend including a "changes since RFC 6486" section that motivates why the document is being updated or replaced. -Ben -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
