Re: [nfsv4] AD review: draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid-03

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

The abstract only allows mentions of RFC but no ref/url link. So you don’t
need to xref in the abstract.

//Zahed

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 00:22, Thomas Haynes <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Oct 5, 2023, at 3:43 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > # Please clearly mention that this specification will update RFC8881 in
> the abstract.
>
> One of my problems with this is that when I do that, the nit picker
> complains:
>
> Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7863, but the
>      abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC7863
>      though, so this could be OK.
>
>   -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8881, but the
>      abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC8881
>      though, so this could be OK.
>
> Here is my abstract for reference:
>
>       The Network File System v4 (NFSv4) allows a client to both open a
>       file and be granted a delegation of that file.  This delegation
>       provides the client the right to authoritatively cache metadata
>       on the file locally.  This document presents several extensions
>       for both the opening and delegating of the file  to
>       the client. This document updates both RFC8881 and RFC7863.
>
> If I change it to:
>
> This document updates both <xref
>       target="RFC8881" format="default" sectionFormat="of"/> and <xref
>       target="RFC7863" format="default" sectionFormat="of"/>.
>
> I get:
>
>  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC7863], [RFC8881]), which
>      it shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of
> the
>      documents in question.
>
>   -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7863, but the
>      abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC7863
>      though, so this could be OK.
>
>   -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8881, but the
>      abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC8881
>      though, so this could be OK.
>
> So I guess the first form is correct, but how am I supposed to input this
> to not trigger the nits?
>
>