On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:34:56AM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 03:25:49PM -0800, S Moonesamy wrote: > > 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. The -09 version proposes to obsolete 6486. There is an htmlized version available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-09 Kind regards, job -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
