Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > These questions (for the WG) came up so far:
> 1. The new text for the extension mechanism mentions: "This document
I have changed this text in -17.
I've removed the word experimental.
> 2. Who handles common editorial fixes - the WG now, or the WG after
> WGLC, or the RFC editor later? This fixing includes the common things
> like consistent capitalization, using same term for same thing, etc.
> In other words should I flag such issues now or leave most of the
> obvious fixes (which doesn't change semantics) for later?
I went through some of the terms, and I fixed a few things that some
reviewers have complained about, DNS Registrar != BRSKI Registrar.
I didn't see any inconsistent capitalization among the Terminology, but I
could have missed some.
If you see specific things, let's fix them now, but the RPC will deal with
the rest.
> 3. Two labels " WARNING, obsolete definitions" can be found in the
> document - is this intentionally included i.e. are the SIDs really
> obsolete, or can we just remove these warnings (as an editorial fix)?
> Just wanted to double-check this so that people are not reviewing
> obsolete items.
Fixed/removed.
the pyang situation has gotten worse, but we are making progress.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
