On May 28, 2024, at 11:14 AM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > ** Section 6.1. In the “TEAP TLV Type” registry, the following updated is > requested: > > 11,PAC TLV,(DEPRECATED) [RFC7170][THIS-DOCUMENT] > > Why is “(DEPRECATED)” added to the reference column? Has the meaning of this > column been updated to imply some level of maturity?
No. I'll remove that. > ** Section 6.1. Editorial. Is it necessary to relist all of the code points > for which there is a reference change from [RFC7170] to [THIS-DOCUMENT] if > Section 6 already says to do this substitution? Likely not. The PAC TLV is different from the rest, but that change can be omitted. > ** Section 6.1. > > ==[ snip ]== > IANA is instructed to update the "TEAP PAC TLV (value 11) PAC Attribute Type > Codes" and "TEAP PAC TLV (value 11) PAC-Type Type Codes" registries with a > NOTE: > > This registry has been closed. See [THIS-DOCUMENT]. > ==[ snip ]== > > Perhaps this should read “IANA is instruction to close the ‘TEAP PAC TLV > (value > 11) PAC Attribute Type Codes’ and ‘TEAP PAC TLV (value 11) PAC-Type Type > Codes’ > registries for new registrations and updates there registries with a NOTE:” Will do. > ** idnits reports: > > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 > (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Updated, thanks. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list -- emu@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to emu-le...@ietf.org
