Brian, > On Jan 11, 2017, at 7:32 AM, Brian Haberman <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Makes sense, I will add a reference to RFC5952 in the next version of the draft. Thanks, Bob > > Regards, > Brian >