Re: [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: (with COMMENT)

[Lucien <[e-mail]>]

Hi Al!

Great catch thank you, I just fixed it and published -19 referencing to the
proper RFC number!

Thanks,
Lucien

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:11 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Lucien,
>
> I caught a small mix-up in your late-night reply to Adam, below.
>
> Thanks for your massive editing efforts!
>
> Al
>
>
>
> *From:* Lucien [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 22, 2017 1:05 AM
> *To:* Adam Roach
> *Cc:* The IESG; [e-mail]; Sarah
> Banks; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17:
> (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> Hi Adam,
>
>
>
> thanks for spending time to review and provide more comments to the list.
>
> I addressed both of your emails with the latest publication i just did.
>
>
>
> Please see inline for details:
>
> *…stuff deleted…*
>
>
>   == Missing Reference: 'RFC5481' is mentioned on line 285, but not defined
>
>
>
> Removed this RFC as we no longer reference it
>
>
>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC5841' is defined on line 732, but no explicit
>      reference was found in the text
>
> Removed this RFC as we no longer reference it
>
>
>
> *[ACM] *
>
> *This is another case of transposed RFC numbers.*
>
> *The draft references RFC 5481 in section 3.1 (terms) and this is correct!*
>
> *But the original reference was for “5841”, which wasn’t*
>
> *used in the text.  You need to add a reference to*
>
> *RFC 5481 in the next update. *
>
> *THANKS!*
>
>
>   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2554 (ref. 'RFC2544') (Obsoleted by
>      RFC 4954)
>
> I am sorry we use RFC 2544, not 2554 so we are good actually, its not
> obsoleted at all.
>
>
>
>
>