One clarification regarding this comment
11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style
Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let
us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in
more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
We follow rfc9794—perhaps better to cite it?
Yes, I agree we should mention RFC9794 and keep using "traditional". It is
imported from the hybrid framework (and RFC 9794 PQ/T taxonomy), changing
here would break consistency with the documents this one builds on.
I reviewed the edits already made. They look good.
I've double checked that and I agree with Bas's statement above.
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
