Subject: [mile] CSIRT draft nits

From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 22:17:33 +0000

Hello authors,
I am doing the shepherd writeup for your draft and ran into some nits (see below) that I’d like to see addressed before I submit.
Please let me know when a new version’s up and I can submit it for publication.
Thanks and Happy Holidays!

Here are the nits:
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
     being 1 character in excess of 72.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
     it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.

     (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
     ID-Checklist requires).
  -- The document date (October 28, 2019) is 56 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 596, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4287' is defined on line 601, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5023' is defined on line 609, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4949

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5070 (Obsoleted by RFC 7970)

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
     draft-dulaunoy-misp-core-format-07