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(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
On May 2, 2017, at 19:01, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 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