[Gendispatch] Re: New Version Notification for draft-rsalz-2026bis-11.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 09-Oct-24 07:18, Salz, Rich wrote:
>   * So ready for IETF LC then?  Just needs a friendly AD …
> 
> I think there’s still the errata to deal with.  Turns out to be pretty simple now that the IPR section has been removed; see below for a summary.  I will post a draft with these fixes in a day or two.
> 
>   * Are there any documents that reference 2026 or the plethora of bis documents that need to be updated?  Or would this be best handled separately?
> 
> If they refer to BCP9, then no change is needed. (And BTW once this draft is published, BCP 9 becomes just that document. :) I have no idea how many documents reference 2026 directly,


297

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2026/referencedby/

I think there are bogons in there, e.g. RFC 3450 (chosen at random) references 2026 but doesn't cite the reference. But quite a few to check...

    Brian

> but anyone who follows that pointer will, again once this draft is published, get a pointer to the replacement doc.
> 
> Errata action plan:
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid523
> 
> Typo fixed.
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid524
> 
> Acronym expanded on first use.
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid1622
> 
> Typo fixed.
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3014
> 
>                  Typo fixed.
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3095
> 
> Wording (with->"with or without") changed, since it is marked
> 
>                  as editorial and while a semantic change seems to be correct..
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7181
> 
>                  Moved the Note earlier, not a semantic change.
> 
> Moving to markdown and the associated tooling fixed the following:
> 
>                  https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6658
> 
>                  https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6659
> 
>                  https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6661
> 
>                  https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6669
> 
>                  https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6671
> 
> ----------------
> 
> The following errata are closed by draft 11, which removed the text,
> 
> but perhaps they should be assigned to 5378 or 8179 as appropriate.
> 
>                  https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid586
> 
>                  https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2007
> 
>                  https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2044
> 
>                  https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3015
> 
>                  https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3016
> 
>