On 11/05/2013 04:58, Stig Venaas wrote:
On 5/10/2013 8:12 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
Thanks Bing -
The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of
referencing Tim's expired draft.
So the solution is to not reference it? I see the name of the draft is
mentioned in the acknowledgments as:
[draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout].
Shouldn't it then be an informational reference? It doesn't make sense
to me to mention a draft in the text and not have a reference.
YMMV, but I expect the RFC Editor will resolve this.
Brian