Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
RFC 5198 imposes additional constraints. These may be harmless, but I'm reluctant to endorse technical change this late in the process. Perhaps those who contributed to the development of RFC 5198 would care to comment?
RFC 5198 actually allows certain things which we do not allow in the Registry--NFC is only a SHOULD in 5198 but a MUST in draft-4646bis, and 5198 allows the bizarre CR NUL sequence which is forbidden in the Registry. So referencing 5198 would still require us to list the additional constraints *we* impose.
Section 3.1.1 of the draft already has plenty of external references. The only reason to add a reference to 5198 would be to further increase the number of cross-references between RFCs, or to effect a technical change for some unspecified reason. I oppose this change.
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 (listed in Acknowledgments section of 5198) http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.