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

Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org> Tue, 30 October 2018 17:38 UTC

To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Rob Stradling <rob.stradling@comodo.com>, jsha@letsencrypt.org, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
References: <7FC03EEB-0D87-4454-805C-62DBCBA845C3@vigilsec.com>
From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
Message-ID: <1d4bb827-462b-c732-e5bd-a017fe18dd28@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:38:12 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7FC03EEB-0D87-4454-805C-62DBCBA845C3@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/qGR7Tmc-nv7ITx_IiN7kSiv9yj8>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for rfc6844bis
Precedence: list

I'll fix these, thanks!

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
>
>
>

[lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for rfc68… Russ Housley
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Russ Housley
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Sean Turner
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… fujiwara
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Russ Housley
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Russ Housley
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Sean Turner
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Tim Hollebeek
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Tim Hollebeek
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
Re: [lamps] Preparing the shepherd write-up for r… fujiwara