<adding rfced-future> I don’t care that much. I will note that -rfced-model assumes that this change is made, without having any normative statements about the matter, and “justification” isn’t usually a reason for a normative reference, but I’ll make the change if others want me to. Brian > On Feb 9, 2022, at 2:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10-Feb-22 06:53, Bernard Aboba via Datatracker wrote: >> Reviewer: Bernard Aboba >> Review result: Almost Ready >> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's >> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written >> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's >> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF >> discussion list for information. >> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this >> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC >> tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review. >> This document updates RFC 2026 so as to be compatible with the proposed >> RFC Editor Model v3. >> This document has no transport-related implications. >> NITs: >> "It no " -> "It is no" >> Given that [I-D.iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model] provides the justification for the >> change to RFC 2026, it seems like it should be a normative rather than an >> informative reference. > > That would be a downref. However, we decided to do exactly what you suggest > in draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter. > > Brian > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
