[rfc-i] New version of the v3 draft

Hi,

I noticed that in several places you use rfc7878 or RFC7878 in examples.

Is that carefully chosen? It's likely to be published Real Soon Now.
I think it might be better to refer to a non-existent RFC as an example.
I persuaded the authors of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis to use RFC 4637
(never issued) as an example.

Regards
   Brian

On 23/06/2016 08:36, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2016, at 11:21, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> 
>> It sounds like all the serious issues are dealt with at this point, and
>> what's left is pretty minor or even simply a matter of personal
>> preference. I'd like to see this draft posted with the last bits you
>> worked on, Paul, and declare it stable enough for publication. We will
>> update this, and all the other drafts, with implementation experience as
>> we start the production work on the code.
> 
> Done.
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-iab-xml2rfc-04.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Paul Hoffman and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-iab-xml2rfc
> Revision:	04
> Title:		The "xml2rfc" version 3 Vocabulary
> Document date:	2016-06-22
> Group:		iab
> Pages:		159
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-xml2rfc-04.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-xml2rfc/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-xml2rfc-04
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-iab-xml2rfc-04
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 