Dear all, I completely agree with Gorry’s suggestions below. Many thanks, Gorry, for pointing this out! BTW I changed the subject line, as it wrongly indicated that this is about RFC-to-be-9621 (draft-ietf-taps-arch): this email actually concerns RFC-to-be-9622 (draft-ietf-taps-interface).
Cheers, Michael > On 28 Nov 2024, at 08:28, Gorry Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote: > > ALl current changes look good to me, however, I'm sorry I have a late request > to fix another inconsistency. > > There is regarding the way the I-D describes events. > > (1) In code, Events are written as "EventName<>", that is correct. I think it > is done consistently. > > (2) In the text, sometimes, it is written as "EventName<>" and in some other > places it is without "the pointy brackets" - I suspect different > contributors used different styles. > > I think it would be better to only use "<>" within the code fragments and not > in other places. > > This usage appears consistent until section 7.3. > > However, changes are needed in section 7.3: > > /RendezvousDone<> event/RendezvousDone event/ > /PathChange<> event/PathChange event/ > /Sent <> event/Sent event/ > > And changes are needed in section 11, I think we should change all > occurrences in this section of "EventName<>" to "EventName event" in the text > body (but not the code). Note: please also check this does not result in > "event event" (saying event twice) > > Within this section, this would change: > > /<> event/event/ > > /<>/event/ > > Best wishes, > > Gorry > > > --- -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
