mirror of
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/wg-materials
synced 2025-08-22 02:09:16 +00:00
text cleanup
This commit is contained in:
parent
b2ce1576b3
commit
1d06886638
@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of
|
||||
|
||||
Working Group Summary:
|
||||
|
||||
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
|
||||
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
|
||||
|
||||
Document Quality:
|
||||
|
||||
@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
|
||||
|
||||
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
|
||||
|
||||
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
|
||||
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
|
||||
|
||||
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user