diff --git a/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis.md b/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis.md
index c23d1d9e2..aba25e84f 100644
--- a/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis.md
+++ b/draft-ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis.md
@@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ Server: Bar/2.2
 
 HTTP Applications SHOULD focus on defining the following application-specific protocol elements:
 
-* Media types {{!RFC6838}}, often based upon a format convention such as JSON {{?RFC7159}},
+* Media types {{!RFC6838}}, often based upon a format convention such as JSON {{?RFC8259}},
 * HTTP header fields, as per {{headers}}, and
 * The behaviour of resources, as identified by link relations {{!RFC5988}}.
 
@@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ For example, an application might specify:
     The "Example-Count" response header field on Widget representations
     indicates how many Widgets are held by the sender.
 
-    The "application/example-widget+json" format is a JSON {{?RFC7159}}
+    The "application/example-widget+json" format is a JSON {{?RFC8259}}
     format representing the state of a Widget. It contains links to
     related information in the link indicated by the Link header field
     value with the "example-other-info" link relation type.
@@ -591,6 +591,3 @@ RFC3205 captured the Best Current Practice in the early 2000's, based on the con
 protocol designers at the time. Use of HTTP has changed considerably since then, and as a result
 this document is substantially different. As a result, the changes are too numerous to list
 individually.
-
-
-