Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation-04

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 04 July 2020 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616E53A10F1; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 14:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pj-o2GHGBto1; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 14:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6366D3A10EF; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 14:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.42.112] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49zl0w5lfdzyY6; Sat, 4 Jul 2020 23:13:04 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <159379401341.16286.15071860923365675793@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2020 23:13:04 +0200
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation.all@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 615589984.152316-a85e7d018af2aabd821c05b42fe7d65b
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AD7C936E-C239-47A0-9A27-575FEE1067D4@tzi.org>
References: <159379401341.16286.15071860923365675793@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Uny9_j0Z81cnpU8yb85LYG1g46o>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-allan-5g-fmc-encapsulation-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2020 21:13:10 -0000

On 2020-07-03, at 18:33, Russ Housley via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> I assume that it is okay to use "[1] [2]" instead of
> "[RFC2119] [RFC8174]", but this is not the tradition.

Oh.  Numeric references are not good style in RFCs (neither are they current style, e.g., compare RFC 7322 — while section 4.8.6 is silent about that fact, it does say

   References will generally appear in alphanumeric order by citation
   tag.  […]

...and of course RFC 7322 uses the current style itself).

So you do want to say (kramdown syntax):

pi:
  symrefs: 'yes'
  sortrefs: 'yes’

Or, in RFCXMLv3 vernacular:

<rfc ... sortRefs="true" symRefs="true” 

(Symrefs is true by default in RFCXMLv3, but sortrefs is not.  Go figure.)

Grüße, Carsten