[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026-01

Bernard Aboba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 09 February 2022 17:53 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Bernard Aboba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: tsv-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <164442923749.24453.13117947281136337416@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 09:53:57 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/o8_qQRPnkCGGEk6RJS7OTvWU-aY>
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-rosen-rfcefdp-update-2026-01

Reviewer: Bernard Aboba
Review result: Almost Ready

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

This document updates RFC 2026 so as to be compatible with the proposed
RFC Editor Model v3.

This document has no transport-related implications.

NITs:

"It no " -> "It is no"

Given that  [I-D.iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model] provides the justification for the
change to RFC 2026, it seems like it should be a normative rather than an
informative reference.

[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-rosen-… Bernard Aboba via Datatracker
Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review… Brian Rosen
Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review… Brian E Carpenter