Dear Scott, the header actually indicates clearly that this draft "Obsoletes: 4742".
I am not really sure why the additional statement is necessary. Cheers, Mehmet Ersue (Document shepherd) > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Scott W Brim [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 3:18 PM > To: gen-art; [email protected]; Ersue, > Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) > Subject: gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc4742bis-07 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-netconf-4742bis-07 > Reviewer: Scott Brim > Review Date: 2011-02-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2011-02-16 > IESG Telechat date: 2011-03-03 > > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits > that should be fixed before publication. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > One IDnit, which is a good idea: "The draft header indicates that this > document obsoletes RFC4742, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention > this, which it should." _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
