Hi Sandy,
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:45 AM Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Aijun, > > We question whether sourcecode type=“abnf" is correct because Section 2.1 > includes the following: > > 2.1. Use of RBNF > > The message formats in this document are illustrated using Routing > Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding, as specified in [RFC5511]. > > There is no mention of ABNF in the document. If the sourcecode type is > ABNF, please note that we will add a normative reference to RFC 5234. > Please review and let us know if the sourcecode type should be updated. > > > Dhruv: type should be "rbnf" as it is one of the source code types in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types Thanks for pointing it out! Thanks! Dhruv > > On Mar 3, 2025, at 7:49 PM, Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> > wrote: > > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode > element in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of > preferred values for "type" > > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types) > > does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. > > Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. > > -->[WAJ]. The "type" attribute of each source code element in this XML > file, should be "ABNF", instead of "xbnf", please update them (it seems > there are only two occurrences) > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
