OK, good ... Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> Table 1: Label to RFC Mapping >>>> >>>> In -28, this caption appears visually to be the caption of both the >>>> dependency diagram at the top of page 5 and the label-to-RFC mapping >>>> table at the bottom of page 5, and so probably should be amended to >>>> describe both of them together. >>> >>> s/Label in Diagram to RFC Mapping/Label to RFC Mapping/ >>> >>> Good enough? >> >> Since the title on the table in -28 already is "Label to RFC Mapping", I >> think you didn't write here what you meant. > > Whoops - I had that backwards. Was supposed to be: > > s/Label to RFC Mapping/Label in Diagram to RFC Mapping/ What bothers me is that the caption *appears* to label everything on page 5, both the dependency graph and the label-to-RFC table, and so I would expect a coption like "The module dependencies and the label to RFC mapping". Then again, that would likely start "Figure 1" rather than "Table 1". Or perhaps a separate caption could be given for the dependency graph. ... OK, this is a minor point, so I'm going to leave it with the authors rather than going on about it. >> (And the template should be updated that >> way, too!) > > Maybe you can file an Errata against RFC 8407? Now in https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7791. Dale -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
