Hi y'all, [snip]
>> Does GMPLS need to be expanded on first occurrence? >> [Xian]: It is a pretty solid abbreviation for whoever needs to read for the technical >> content. But I think your suggestion is reasonable, just like we need to expand to >> RSVP-TE and LSP. Will do. GMPLS is shown as an acceptable abbreviation to be used w/o expansion at http://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt [snip] >> The text in section 7 says: >> >> This section records the status of known implementations of the >> protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of >> this Internet-Draft, >> >> I am not sure whether we should use Internet-Draft terminology in a published RFC, and >> I am not sure what time at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft refers to. >> >> Perhaps you could say something like: >> >> This section records the status of known implementations of the >> protocol defined by this specification at the time of writing the >> specification, > > [Xian]: This section will be removed when it becomes a RFC (see the editor note put at > the beginning of this section in the draft). So I do not think your issue applies. I would > prefer to leave it, avoiding using specification twice. OK? As co-author of this I-D and of RFC 6982, I agree with Xian on this point. Cheers, Adrian -- Read my latest... Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales http://www.feedaread.com/books/Tales-from-the-Wood-9781786100924.aspx http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924 Or buy from me direct. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
