Subject: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for rfc6844bis

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:04:30 -0400

IDnits reports the following problems:

idnits 2.16.0 

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The 'Obsoletes: ' line in the draft header should list only the
     _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be obsoleted by this document (if
     approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.

{{{ Easy to fix, and I would not say anything if this was the only issue. }}}

  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC6844, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

{{{ Please add a sentence to the Abstract. }}}

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'STD13' is mentioned on line 194, but not defined

{{{ Perhaps you meant to reference RFC 1035 here. }}}

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3647

{{{ Can this be moved to an Informational reference? }}}

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5070 (Obsoleted by RFC 7970)

{{{ Is there a reason to not reference RFC 7970? }}}

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126)

{{{ Is there a reason to not reference RFC 8126? }}}

Russ

---

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:38:12 -0700

I'll fix these, thanks!

---

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:45:17 -0700

I've now made these fixes in the latest working copy at 
https://github.com/jsha/caa-simplification/blob/master/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis.md. 
The uploading tool is closed until 2018-11-03 23:59 +07, so I can't 
upload a fresh draft. I can provide rendered .txt or .xml format of the 
current working copy to anyone who would prefer to read in those formats.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:49:02 -0400

The document is missing a revision number.  I am assuming that will get filled in properly when you do the post.

Otherwise, it looks good to me.

Russ

> On Oct 30, 2018, at 6:45 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I've now made these fixes in the latest working copy at https://github.com/jsha/caa-simplification/blob/master/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis.md. The uploading tool is closed until 2018-11-03 23:59 +07, so I can't upload a fresh draft. I can provide rendered .txt or .xml format of the current working copy to anyone who would prefer to read in those formats.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm