OK so how about we go back to your earlier suggestion. I'll remove 7454 as well from the updates section to keep this simple. I'll wait to post an update later today to see if there are other opinions before doing so.
Thanks, mike -----Original Message----- From: Job Snijders <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 5:55 AM To: David Farmer <[email protected]> Cc: Michael McBride <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-as-path-prepending-09.txt On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 09:11:12PM -0600, David Farmer wrote: > If you keep it as updating RFC 7454, I believe you need to say it does > so in the abstract. Also, somewhere in the document, probably in the > introduction, you need to explain how it updates RFC 7454, that is how > this document relates to RFC 7454. Thanks David, that's how I understand the process too. If the contents of draft-ietf-grow-as-path-prepending actually update 7454 (which currently doesn't seem the case), the working group has to think about how that aligns with the 'big update' of 7454 happening in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bgpopsecupd/ Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
