One of the issues with a document that updates another document is that it is supposed to say in the abstract that it does. > On May 2, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc > >> On May 2, 2017, at 19:01, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 03/05/2017 01:30, Joe Clarke wrote: >>> ... >>> NITS: >>> >>> In your Abstract, you mention RFC6890, but this does not appear to be >>> an xref to it, and it should be. >> >> afaik, the RFC Editor style does not allow xrefs in the Abstract. > > I've seen some that do (ostensibly). But this if this isn't required, it wasn't critical. > > Joe > >> >> (Also: draft-bchv-rfc6890bis will update 6890 soon. I don't know whether >> that's relevant.) >> >> Brian