Re: [Last-Call] [dispatch] Genart last call review of draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03

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

 



Hi Brian,
 
>Re-assuming my hat as a Gen-ART reviewer for this draft, I think that this
>change would be a mistake, as it no longer explicitly informs the reader
>what has been changed in RFC 3405.
 
>If we really want to be precise, I suggest:
 
>2. Updated Requirements
 
>This document removes the normative requirement from section 3.1.1
>of RFC 3405 for registrations in URI.ARPA to be from the IETF URI Tree.
 
>All registrations in URI.ARPA MUST now be for schemes which are
>permanent registrations, as they are described in BCP 35.
 
 
 
Sorry, I want to make my last comment more clear.  
In the interest of brevity, we probably don't really need that second sentence.  And its removal might help to open things up a bit.  So section two would now look like:
 
2. Updated Requirements
 
This document removes the normative requirement from section 3.1.1
of RFC 3405 for registrations in URI.ARPA to be from the IETF URI Tree.
-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux