Thank you for the review. I'm moving email addresses right now, so replying from my new address. Comments inline.
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > ----- Forwarded message from "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- > > From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], General Area Review Team <[email protected]> > Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-01 > X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-01 > Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani > Review Date: 21 Aug 2007 > IESG Telechat date: 1 Sept 2007 > > Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. > > This is a short draft that defines the use of IRIs and URIs > in XMPP communications. A few nits follow: > > 1) In a few places, [IRI], [IDNA] et al. are used as a reference > holder as well as a subject, example in S2.2: > > "...to convert [IRI] syntax into [IDNA] syntax ..." > > You may want to reconsider rewriting these as follows: > > "... to convert IRI syntax [IRI] into IDNA syntax [IDNA]..." > > for better readability. Good point. I have cleaned that up in my working copy. > 2) S2.5: s/examples include but are not/examples include, but are not/ Fixed. > 3) In S2.7.2 and S2.8.2, XMPP addresses continue to the next line. > Do you need LWS at the beginning of the second line to denote > continuation? It's not clear to me how best to represent the line breaks. I will inquire of this with the RFC Editor. > 4) S3.8, consider s/XXXX/this document Done. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
