Hi Sandy, all, Thanks for the review and guidance.
On 07/11, Sandy Ginoza wrote: > Hi Job, > > [...] > >>>> Manifest vs manifest (6487 and 9286 seem to use "manifest" except where > >>>> it's part of a specific name.) > > > > Personally I think "Manifest" would be clearer for the reader, because > > lower-case manifest can also be a verb. But, I also understand a > > desire for some consistency with 6487/9286. > > > > If 9286 wouldn't exist, what would've been the recommended approach from > > your professional editing perspective? > > > > There also is another RFC publication coming down the pipeline > > (draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers), this provides an opportunity to > > establish a new 'norm' (should we opt to go for Manifest in this > > document). > > In general, we recommend against overcapitalization because it can > detract from readability. Regarding “manifest”, when read in context, > we do not think readers will be confused. If you disagree and think > some instances may be confusing, please let us know. I agree that the lower-case form is preferable here. I believe confusion with other possible uses of the term "manifest" is minimal in this and similar future documents. I have re-read the latest version, and have nothing further to add. Please take this as approval to proceed to publication from me. Cheers, Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
