Thomas Haynes <loghyr@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I believe I have addressed all of your points, even if I did not > directly reply to your points. I.e., an earlier rewrite might impact > the scope of your comments. Thanks for taking care of this! It looks like you've considered everything carefully and resolved the issues I see. >> The text is written for people who have the entirety of the previously >> defined protocol in their heads, and know all of the processing >> paths. > > I will not argue this point. > >> That is, it's a very densely-written sent of amendments, with >> no clear indexing of exactly what execution paths are affected by what >> extensions/requirements. It would be better if the items were broken >> apart, the text expanded, and keyed to the definitions of the >> procedures which are being amended. I suppose I could argue that changes ought to address this issue, but that is probably a monstrous piece of work, and the result possibly not easier to read and digest than the current document structure. So I am going to defer to the authors about that. Dale -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
