I am fine with Frank's proposed changes, except for the following: > 6. Items withdrawn, vacated, deprecated, > + or modified > - modified, or otherwise judged by the LTRU working group > - to be questionable > were not added to the ILSR. This works out to "Items withdrawn, vacated, deprecated, or modified were not added to the ILSR." I don't like the feel of this sentence, and to be honest, I don't know what the word "modified" is doing there. If the numeric code has been modified, that means the code element has been withdrawn and is not in the registry; if it's just the name that has been modified, the item is in the registry under the new name. I would prefer: "Code elements that were withdrawn, vacated, or deprecated from [UN-M.49] as of the date of adoption of [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] were not added to the ILSR." > I didn't check all tags > again assuming that you'd tell us if you did something more > interesting than replacing some dates by 2005-07-10. No content changes other than the one's we've discussed on the list, and advancing "Date B" with each draft. > All references are in fact referenced. The tools make it difficult to do otherwise. Thanks for your comments. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.