Clarify protocol guidance and refresh IETF comparison - #252
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 31af6039df
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 78aa557da7
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 550a306c55
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 85374a46c0
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 46be3a250b
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 27d7d78eb6
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 7508a4d3a9
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 3b536d63c4
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| { | ||
| "id": "dawn", | ||
| "document": "charter-ietf-dawn-00-07", | ||
| "revision_date": "2026-09-11", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The machine-readable inventory assigns the DAWN charter a revision_date of 2026-09-11 even though the same row explicitly says that the charter revision date was not separately established and cites only the group-status page. Consumers will treat this as verified revision metadata, and the validator merely checks its chronology. Cite an authoritative source that establishes this date or represent the revision date as unknown and update the validator accordingly.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| # Local references needed to read the reviewed documents in isolation. | ||
| "CONTRIBUTING.md", | ||
| "GOVERNANCE.md", | ||
| "SPEC_RELEASE_PROCESS.md", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When either review archive is consumed standalone, the newly included SPEC_RELEASE_PROCESS.md directs reviewers to spec/v1.9/release-integrity-manifest.json, tools/check_spec_release_integrity.py, and tools/check_public_artifact_closure.py, but neither bundle inventory includes them. Fresh evidence beyond the earlier version-authority thread is that packaging the release guide introduced these new unresolved archive-relative references, which the link test misses because they are backtick paths rather than Markdown links; package them in both bundles and assert their presence.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Scope
Two commits separate editorial guidance from standards/evidence changes. Published v1.10.17 tags and assets are unchanged.
Local validation
bash tools/run_profile_fixture_contract.sh(isolated local venv): pass.python3 tools/check_spec_release_integrity.py: pass, 268 pinned files.python3 tools/check_public_artifact_closure.py --all-public: pass.python3 tools/check_public_prose.py --strict README.md GOVERNANCE.md CONTRIBUTING.md: 0 errors, one README boldface advisory.No release, deployment, production mutation, or independent qualification is asserted.