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]

 



> 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



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

  Powered by Linux