Hi Stig, thanks for your review. On 2/24/22 7:00 PM, Stig Venaas via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Stig Venaas Review result: Has Nits I have reviewed the document and it is in good shape. The document has a few nits found by the idnits tool. The string "RFC" should not be included when specifing "obsoletes:" or "updates:". Also the abstract mentions that the documents obsoletes or updates documents that are not listed by the obsoletes/updates headers.
Hmm, I don't see that... Obsoletes: RFC8728 (if approved) Updates: RFC7841, RFC8729, RFC8730 (if approved) and... This document obsoletes [RFC8728] by defining version 3 of the RFC Editor Model. This document updates [RFC7841] by defining boilerplate text for the Editorial Stream. This document updates [RFC8729] by replacing the RFC Editor role with the RSWG, RSAB, and RSCE. This document updates [RFC8730] by removing the dependency on certain policies specified by the IAB and RSE.
In 3.1.1.4. paragraph 4: "participation for those unable to to attend in person." Double "to".
It seems that you reviewed -10, not -11 (which is the latest), since that exact text is in -10 but not -11.
I'm wondering whether any of the references should be normative, but it may not make sense for this document.
Indeed we concluded that it didn't make sense for this document. Thanks! Peter -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
