Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12

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

 



Yes, it's a typo,
next version will update it.

Abel

-----原始郵件----- From: Pete Resnick
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 9:19 PM
To: Miguel A. Garcia
Cc: Russ Housley ; abelyang@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; Shawn.Steele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxx ; General Area Review Team ; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12

Your initial suspicion was correct: It is a typo.

Impressive how many folks can miss something so simple.

I'll put it in a note to the RFC Editor.

pr

On 10/20/11 5:48 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
Yes, I interpret the same. But having found no motivation for the reduction of 10 octets, I just wanted to verify that there is no typo in the figure.

A bit of motivation for the "988" would help too.

/Miguel

On 20/10/2011 14:42, Russ Housley wrote:
Miguel:

I interpret this text to mean that the old limit was 998 octets and that the new limit is 988 octets.

Russ


On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:

Nits/editorial comments:

- Section 3.4 reads:

   Section 2.1.1 of [RFC5322] limits lines to 998 characters and
   recommends that the lines be restricted to only 78 characters.  This
   specification changes the former limit to 988 octets.
          bbb                                ^^^

I wonder if there is an error in the third line and the text should say "... limit to 998 octets" rather than "988". Otherwise, I can't explain the 988 figure.




--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



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