I think the -05 version of the draft is ok as-is. Thanks, --David > On Jan 23, 2007, at 9:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The -05 version of this draft responds to the open issue identified > > in the Gen-ART review of the -04 version - Section 14.1 contains > > the information that RFC 4422 requires for proper use of SASL. > > > > A couple of minor concerns in the review were not responded to: > > > >> The discussion of chunk ordering in Section 6 on p.9 > >> combines restrictions on which chunk types may co-exist > >> in a single block with requirements on ordering of those > >> types within a block. The combined discussion is somewhat > >> confusing - it would be clearer if these two topics were > >> separated - specify what is allowed within a single block, > >> then specify ordering requirements for what is allowed. > >> > >> Section 9 should state how the client and server determine > >> whether TLS is to be used. Since well-known ports are > >> registered for both XPC and XPCS, this appears to be > >> determined by client selection of which server port to use. > > > > The first one's a matter of taste, and the second one should > > be fine to omit, as it can be inferred from the registrations > > by analogy to HTTP and HTTPS. > > For the first issue, I did try to write langauge as suggested. But > each time I produced something less readable than what I had. I am > welcome to any suggestions and text. > > The second issue is addressed with the base spec (RFC 3981) and the > registration of the URI schemes. If you thinking explicitly > pointing > that out in Section 9 is helpful, then that can be added. > > -andy > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
