Yah, those missing links could be because of the HTML version of the doc. Please ignore that.
Jasdip On Jun 11, 2020, at 2:40 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com<mailto:shollenb...@verisign.com>> wrote: From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Jasdip Singh Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 2:01 PM To: regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Minor feedback on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-00 Hello Scott. While doing the shepherd writeup, noted few minor things which may help polish the doc further. * 5.5: Add “The” to the "Autonomous System Number Object Class” section title to be consistent with others. [SAH] OK * 1, 5, 5.4, 5.5, 7, 8: Looks like the [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis] reference needs the correct link. Additionally, in section 8, [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis] has no link. [SAH] I don’t see the issue, Jasdip. I see references to [I-D.ietf-regext-rfc7482bis], which is correct. The reference includes the correct URL, too. What’s missing? There is a potential issue with references to 7482bis due to a limitation with xml2rfc. The two documents reference each other, and as soon as you update one the bibliography that xml2rfc uses to manage references gets outdated. I have to edit the final text file manually to make this fix. * 1.1: Is the trailing period intended for member, object, and object class definitions? [SAH] I think those are just editorial artifacts that can be removed for consistency. * 2.1: Should lunarNic prefix in the fields match the casing of the lunarNIC prefix for the extension in 4.1? I know there was some discussion on this but not sure if they are orthogonal or not. [SAH] They should probably be consistent to avoid questions just like this one 😊 * 4.5: Looks like extraneous trailing period for eventDate description. [SAH] I can remove that. * 5.3: Does the description of the network member need a trailing period? [SAH] Probably note, since the other descriptions don’t use a trailing period. * 5.5: "high-level structure of the autnum object class consists of information about the network registration” - should “network” be changed to "autonomous system number”? [SAH] Yes. * Should phrase “registry unique” be “registry-unique” to be consistent? [SAH] Yes. * 13.2: [RFC7480] needs a link. [SAH] What link? The reference in the text looks appropriate. If you’re looking at an HTML version of the document and there’s a problem with a missing link, that’s a bug in the tools that generate the HTML version of the document. * Typo “referencce” in the Changes from RFC 7483 section. Also, “00:” used twice in the list. [SAH] 00 is used twice because there’s been both a -00 version of the individual submission and a -00 version of the working group version. I’ll fix the typo. Thanks for the feedback! Thanks, Jasdip
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
