On Apr 9, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Thanks for your review, Christer. The document is up for discussion
in this week's IESG telechat (on Thursday).
Peter: Have you seen Christer's question about Section 2.6?
Sorry, I had missed Christer's review. That text is an artifact of
when the document was Informational, not BCP. I suggest:
OLD
As a
result, implementers are counselled against using example URNs for
any purposes other than documentation, private testing, and truly
experimental contexts.
NEW
Therefore, it is NOT RECOMMENDED for implementers to use example
URNs for any purposes other than documentation, private testing,
and truly experimental contexts.
Jari
On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]
> wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background
on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
>
Document: draft-saintandre-urn-example-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 25 March 2013
IETF LC End Date: 9 April 2013
IETF Telechat Date 11 April 2013
Summary: The draft is well written, with a very minor editorial
comment, and is ready for publication.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues: None
Editorial nits: Section 2.6 contains the word “counseled”. While
not wrong, is there a reason why more common IETF language can’t be
used here? E.g. “recommended against”, or something? :)
Best regards,
Christer
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
