Thanks for the review Robert, On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, at 09:47, Robert Sparks via Datatracker wrote: > Neither the document nor the shepherds write-up acknowledge or explain the > replacement of RFC6838 with RFC3986 for a reference for specifying fragment > identifier syntax and semantics (hence dropping the reference to 6838). It > would be nice to have something captured in the record that supports/explains > this change. I did notice this change in my review, but didn't consider it to be significant. The shift in focus is within the bounds of what I consider editorial discretion as the effect is identical. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
