[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ltru] Issue #46 (AD comment 13) MAY -> can in section 4.6

From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com>
To: <ltru at ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:02:41 -0400

We had a similar discussion and changed another misused "MAY" to "can" (I see it as a similar discussion because it involved the use of a keyword where a keyword was not what was needed; and the intendend meaning was very similar):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg12163.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg12041.html

It makes sense to change this one too, and there seems to be no disagreement.

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>

Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:17:45 +0900

+1 (hats off).   Regards,   Martin.

On 2009/04/12 9:52, Mark Davis wrote:

Prev by Date: Re: [Ltru] Issue #36 (AD comment #3) rules for UN M.49 codes
Next by Date: Re: [Ltru] How to handle macrolanguage when no code?
Previous by thread: Re: [Ltru] Issue #36 (AD comment #3) rules for UN M.49 codes
Next by thread: Re: [Ltru] Issue #43 (AD comment #10) section 5.1 vs 3.2 on file-date value
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.