Hello,
[Cc trimmed]
At 01:54 PM 17-12-2021, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
I would summarize my point here as being "I think this document should have
an 'obsoletes' relationship to 6486, not an 'updates' one". (I'm happy to
be proven wrong, as I didn't actually read the contents in much detail.)
I took a quick look at the draft. It does not explain what is being
updated in 6486. There will be two Proposed Standards which defines
a "manifest" for use in the RPKI if the draft is approved. It is
better to have an "Obsoletes: 6486" and an explanation about that in the draft.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
