Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00

Hi,

I don't think that our documents reference the guidelines document,
and I don't think they need to.  RFC 7223 does not reference RFC
6087, for example.

/martin

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:
> I have read this draft and believe it is ready for publication.
> One question I have is why rfc7223bis not reference NMDA guidelines since it get in line with NMDA guideline, or NMDA guideline has been 
> merged into rfc6087bis?
> Should this draft reference rfc6087bis?
> 
> -Qin
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Kent Watsen
> 发送时间: 2017年11月29日 3:29
> 收件人: netmod@ietf.org
> 抄送: netmod-chairs@ietf.org
> 主题: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00
> 
> All,
> 
> This starts a two-week working group last call on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00.
> 
> Please recall that this update's intention is to modify the YANG module to be in line with the NMDA guidelines [1].  Reviewing the diff between the two drafts [2] should reveal just this.
> 
> The working group last call ends on December 12.
> Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
> 
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
> This is useful and important, even from authors.
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00.txt
> 
> Thank you,
> Netmod Chairs
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod