On Nov 29, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Russ, there are changes needed from this and other reviews, and IMHO > some of them need to go back to the WG. I wouldn't be comfortable > asserting that they are editorial. > > Personally I'd be happy with Revised I-D Needed, with or without a DISCUSS.
With my w.g. chair hat on, I think there have been enough changes that the w.g. should review it once we have a version that resolves the IESG discusses/comments/etc. Bob > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 29/11/2012 14:24, Russ Housley wrote: >> I do not see changes based on this discussion. There should be some, right? >> >> Russ >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> >>> On 17 November 2012 00:16, Brian E Carpenter >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I don't quite understand that. RFC3986 section 2.1 says >>>> pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG >>>> with no restrictions on HEXDIG, so why is %01 disallowed? >>>> (I agree it would be meaningless, but that's another matter). >>> Meaningless is precisely my point. It's unclear what is exactly the >>> right behaviour in this situation, so hedging on the vague side, >>> inadvisable as that normally is, might be safest. >>> >>>>>> s/proxy/intermediary/ >>>> proxy or other intermediary? >>> Exactly. >> >> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
