Hi Bob, On 1/10/17 7:48 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: > Brian, > > Thanks for the review! > >> On Jan 10, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Brian Haberman >> <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Brian Haberman Review result: Ready with Nits >> >> I just have a few comments/questions on this draft. Overall, it is >> in pretty good shape... >> >> 1. Section 2.2.3 looks like a complete re-production of RFC 5952, >> but I don't see a reference to 5952. Is the intent to deprecate >> 5952 since its content is now contained within 4291bis? > > I didn’t include a direct reference in the Section as incorporates > the changes, but it is included in Appendix B describing the > changes. > > No current intent to deprecate RFC5952 as it updates RFC4291. I > don’t see very much value in deprecating (Historic?) the updating > RFCs. I will agree with Randy that there is useful info in 5952 that people need to see. Adding a reference to 5952 here would point people in the right direction. Regards, Brian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature