On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> On 7/18/2018 8:37 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> Section 3.2 replaces text in Section 4.1 of something, but I don't know >> what; the prior paragraph refers to multiple other documents. I suggest: >> (a) clarify which document's 4.1 is being replaced, and (b) don't bother >> including the original (replaced) text. >> > > I'll add reference to the RFC being modified, closer to the modification > text, but I'd rather keep the old language in there, to reduce the > likelihood that someone will replace too-much/not-enough of the existing > text. My concern here is based on past ART efforts where direct citation was said to risk inaccurate copying, and thus semantic drift. Naturally in each instance it's easy to argue "This is a correct copy of the text being replaced" but it's still a generally discouraged practice. Over in DCRUP, we faced the same problem and instead produced Section 3 of RFC8301 with this in mind, for example. -MSK
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
