Addison Phillips wrote: >> if the wording in Section 3.1 is changed to option (b) >> above, I'll be happy to make this change for you. Thanks - doing it individually as modification request on the language list would be a PITA, I'd have to summarize the thread here for what is in essence an irrelevant nit - unless somebody tries weird registry conversions to XML IDs. > Section 3.1 will be changed to reflect (b), as I believe this > was an oversight. ACK. And please do also something about Doug's observation: | 3.1 (which I swear is longer by itself than some RFCs) One point where you could start a 3.1.1 subsection is the statement "Each record MAY also contain the following fields". Maybe you have that already, I look into the 9-11 I-D, not your editor's copy. Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at 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.