>> Minor issues: >> >> I think convention is to list the documents being updated in the Abstract, but >> cannot find any formal guidance. > > You’re right that is the convention, but it’s not required. draft-flanagan-7322bis is attempting to make including updates in the abstract a must, but it’s not been through any kind of LC yet. There is a sentence there saying that a lot of RFCs are updated and to see the updates header so I think under the 7322 to balance concise and to not include references I’m thinking this is okay. > If another update top the document is needed, then it does not seem hard to comply with the coming convention. ====== >> >> If an item is marked as not recommended it does not necessarily mean >> SB> Do you mean "marked as not recommended" or "not marked as recommended”. > > There are two states for the Recommended column: YES and NO. I can go either way on whether > marked as not recommended = NO > not marked as recommended = NO > > WG - thoughts? I think the second wording is more clear. >> ======= >> SB> I am worried about the semantics of Recommended = no. >> SB> Presumably there are three states: recommended, not recommended, >> SB> and silent/don't know/don't care/not yet. Which of these >> SB> states does Recommended = no represent? > > There are two states and a draft that specifies a value in a registry that has a Recommended column needs to state which it is. I’m not too concerned because we can change the column value later if it turns out a NO should have been a YES. It would be more clear is Section 6 said that each parameter will have either "yes" or "no" in the new recommended column. Russ
