Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for rfc6844bis

I've now uploaded draft-02 with these fixes. 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-02

On 10/31/2018 12:49 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> The document is missing a revision number.  I am assuming that will get filled in properly when you do the post.
>
> Otherwise, it looks good to me.
>
> Russ
>
>
>> On Oct 30, 2018, at 6:45 PM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org> wrote:
>>
>> I've now made these fixes in the latest working copy at https://github.com/jsha/caa-simplification/blob/master/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis.md. The uploading tool is closed until 2018-11-03 23:59 +07, so I can't upload a fresh draft. I can provide rendered .txt or .xml format of the current working copy to anyone who would prefer to read in those formats.
>>
>> On 10/30/18 10:04 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>>> IDnits reports the following problems:
>>>
>>> idnits 2.16.0
>>>
>>>    Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>>>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>    == The 'Obsoletes: ' line in the draft header should list only the
>>>       _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be obsoleted by this document (if
>>>       approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.
>>>
>>> {{{ Easy to fix, and I would not say anything if this was the only issue. }}}
>>>
>>>
>>>    -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC6844, but the
>>>       abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
>>>
>>> {{{ Please add a sentence to the Abstract. }}}
>>>
>>>
>>>    Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>>>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>       (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
>>>       to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>>>
>>>    == Missing Reference: 'STD13' is mentioned on line 194, but not defined
>>>
>>> {{{ Perhaps you meant to reference RFC 1035 here. }}}
>>>
>>>
>>>    ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3647
>>>
>>> {{{ Can this be moved to an Informational reference? }}}
>>>
>>>
>>>    ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5070 (Obsoleted by RFC 7970)
>>>
>>> {{{ Is there a reason to not reference RFC 7970? }}}
>>>
>>>
>>>    ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126)
>>>
>>> {{{ Is there a reason to not reference RFC 8126? }}}
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spasm mailing list
>> Spasm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
>