Dear S. Moonesamy, On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 03:25:49PM -0800, S Moonesamy wrote: > [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. Thank you for your observation. The feedback is noted and will be resolved in the -09 version of the internet-draft. Kind regards, Job -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
