Denis Pinkas wrote: > To be positive, I would rather think that an additional sentence > might be needed to say something like: > > "Further updates to the ETSI TS will be available at : > http://www.etsi.org/services_products/freestandard/home.htm";
Something along those lines might be a good idea. Perhaps "The technical contents of this specification are maintained by ETSI; further updates to the ETSI TSI will be available at.." <snip> > For the main body of the document, the text is perfectly aligned, > I mean sections 3 to 8. Readers will not be lost between one > text or the other. > > For sections 1 to 2, each document respects its own structure. > Sections 9 and beyond only exist for the RFC document. > > The ETSI TS structure: > > Introduction > 1 Scope > 2 References > > up to section 8. > > The RFC structure: > > 1. Introduction > 2. Scope > > (...) > > 9. Security considerations > 9.1 Protection of private key > 9.2 Choice of algorithms > 10. IANA Considerations > 11. References > 11.1 Normative references > 11.2 Informative references There's still unnecessary reordering in Section 9 and the Annexes. I'd suggest moving "Security Considerations" (current Section 9) to Annex E (where it originally was), "Guidance on Naming" (current Annex E) back to Annex J, and "Changes from the previous version" (current Annex J) back to Annex K. After this change, the only differences left would be Sections 1, 2, and 11 (where it might be OK). Section 10 (the empty IANA considerations section) will be removed by the RFC editor. Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
