Thanks Ben. That would be good.
Yours,
Joel
On 1/2/18 8:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
Hi Joel,
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote:
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2018-01-02
IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11
IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25
Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no reference to
RFCs 2119 or 8174. Some of the uses of "must" int he document are along
the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language. But
other uses are clearly normative in structure. It is unclear why the
reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update.
Thanks for the review -- I'm a bit surprised that id-nits does not
complain about the omission.
I do not know why the -00 dropped that clause, but it does seem like
the current normal text citing 8174 should be added before
publication.
-Ben