Hi Martin - Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 26, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Martin Thomson <mt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I don’t buy that. If the effect is truly identical, leaving the text alone would have been more in keeping with your characterization of the document that it exists only to make one change. I suspect there’s more benefit to the change than an identical effect that just makes the editor feel better. To be sure, this isn’t a huge deal, but it really would help to not make the readers not guess why the change was made. RjS -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
