[ipv6-wg] RIPE-554-bis

Hi Azael,

Thanks for the feedback.   The authors will discuss the possibility of
using STD as well as RFC numbers.

We'll fix the error in the next revision, thanks for the feedback.

Regards,
Tim

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 9:31 PM Azael Fernandez A. <azael at redes.unam.mx>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have been following the presentation in May and the messages in this
> list, and since 2018 I have asked  *Jan *if you were planning to update
> this document.
> So I am very delighted to see that it is happening.
>
> By reviewing the new version I would suggest, in the case of the RFCs that
> are in the category of Standards Track, to have the indication of Standard,
> for example when updating the IPv6 Basic specification
> it would be better to write it in the following way:
> IPv6 Basic specification [RFC8200 or STD 86]
>
> and better to also have the reference to the RFC made obsolete by standard
> tracks  for example, in this case:
> IPv6 Basic specification [RFC8200 or STD 86] (made obsolete RFC 2460), the
> main reason is that in almost all the datasheets, the original or previous
> RFC are still mentioned.
>
> Finally, I found a writing error in the mandatory support for CPE
> equipment, it says RFC7094, and it should be RFC*7084.*
>
> BEST,
> Azael
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20210908/217a3756/attachment.html>