Re: [regext] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02: (with COMMENT)

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 6:38 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Mario Loffredo <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-
> rfc7482bis-02: (with COMMENT)
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
> is safe.
>
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis-02: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)

[SAH] [snip]

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for this document.  Only one minor comment:
>
> It wasn't clear to me whether the Appendix "Changes from RFC 7482" was
> going to be kept - there is no RFC editor note to suggest that it be removed.
>
> Generally, I think that have a short section explaining how a RFC has changed
> from a previously published version is helpful.  But if this is kept, then I would
> try and condense this text down to the list of important changes from RFC
> 7482.  E.g., added "implementation status" wouldn't apply if that is going to
> be stripped before the RFC is published.

[SAH] My intention was for the appendix to be kept as-is to provide a detailed list of editorial and explanatory changes, confirming that the protocol itself has not been changed. Has the RFC Editor been removing such sections? If so, I can add a note to request that it be preserved.

Scott