On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 8:53 PM Rebecca VanRheenen < rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> Hi Olafur and Shumon, > > Thank you for your review and comments. We have updated the document > accordingly and have a few followup questions/notes: > > b) > > > Section 7.1 > > OLD: > > insists that pseudo-types must be clear > > NEW: > > insists that pseudo-types are not set > > We have not updated as indicated above. Would “not be set” be better than > “are not set”? Shumon also notes that 'The "must be clear" phrasing came > from re-using the phrasing in the original RFC text. But I'm not attached > to it.’ > > Please discuss and let us know if any updates are needed. > I'm happy with the text as currently written. (And for the reason cited -- that it re-uses a phrase from the cited RFC). I also don't think there is any lack of clarity here. A bit being clear means that it is not set. Olafur - if you feel strongly about the change, please elaborate on your reasoning. c) Note that we will ask AD approval for all changes that are “above > editorial”. This includes changes to values and 2119 key words. We will > send that request in a separate email once the questions above are > addressed. > Okay, we'll await the AD's response/approval. Thank you, Shumon.
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
