On 3 December 2011 01:47, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 1.2 >> worth pointing out that 'reserved' and 'unreserved' are formally >> defined in 1.5, to stop people reaching for RFC3986. > If this is an issue, I'd actually prefer to place the notational > conventions section higher in the document. Thoughts? Moving 1.5 to a position between 1.1 and 1.2 is a very good idea. It won't stop me from reaching for RFC 3986 again and again and again when I seriously try to grok syntactical details. Unrelated: IMHO it is perfectly okay to import ABNF terms such as SP, DQUOTE, and CTL even when they are only used in a comment. E.g., I had to check that 7F belongs to CTL in this draft, or that 80..9F don't in another draft (IRIbis). It is no problem that I'm forced to reach for STD 66 and 68 until I'll eventually know them by heart. -Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf