In your previous mail you wrote: > - Abstract page 2: a 1-hop -> an 1-hop?? I have asked around, and there seems to be opinions both ways. Not being a native English-speaker, I would suggest deferring to the RFC Editor on this matter? => yes, it is a typical example of a point where the RFC Editor can/should help!
> - 12.1 page 37: my dict doesn't know "unverifiable" > (note there is another occurrence of this word) => note the question was not the meaning but where it belongs to the English language (as it is in your dict it does). > - 12.3 page 39: IMHO '-' is not a good character to introduce a list =20= > item > (I really prefer * or +) > > - 12.5 page 41, 12.6 pages 42 43, 13.2 page 45: same concern > (To both of the above) These are artifacts of how xml2rfc constructs (nested) itemized lists. I'm afraid that I do not know how to change this behavior of xml2rfc, but I assume that the RFC Editor will make the final document conform to their style-guides also on this matter. => I already patched the character list in the xml2rfc.tcl script (:-)... (if you'd like to know how to do) Regards [email protected] PS: as you seem to like the gen-art review process, we are looking for reviewers... _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
