> On 09/03/2020 6:14 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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
