Hi Dhruv, Thanks for your reply - we have updated the document accordingly and will continue with publication at this time.
Thanks, RFC Editor/sg > On Mar 14, 2025, at 12:23 AM, Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote: > > 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
