Pete, You can check the official Nits tools in the IETF datatracker. It identifies your references and language boilerplate as Nits. However, I agree they are minor and might also be OK if the RFC editor accepted them. Regards, Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 10:55 PM > To: Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis.all@xxxxxxxx; > emailcore@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-11 > > Hi Sheng, > > Thanks for the review. A couple of comments below: > > On 28 Apr 2024, at 23:34, Sheng Jiang via Datatracker wrote: > > > It is not needed to list RFC2822 & RFC822， the historic documents far > > before RFC5322. The history can be tracked just from the mentioning of > > RFC5322. > > True, but since there are references in the text to these documents, it was > easier to put them in the list. > > > The quoting format is not following the normal RFC setting. [...] > > > > It is recommended to replace quoting label, such as BCP14, STD13, > > STD18, by normal RFC +number. > > As for the references to the BCPs and STDs, I think this is becoming more > common, but I'll leave that decision to the RFC Editor when they do their edit. > When you say "quoting format", is that what you meant? > > > The format of requiring language boilerplate is also containing > > errors. > > I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is it the references format mentioned > above, or did you mean something more? > > Thanks again, > > pr > -- > Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/ > All connections to the world are tenuous at best -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
