On Mar 31, 2013, at 12:34, Charles Palmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've read the new draft and offer some suggestions, mostly editorial, but > there are a couple of other constraints that I think might merit mentioning > (particularly regularory), and a couple of questions I have embedded in the > text. The edited version is here: Thanks, those suggestions did allow me to improve the text. I've left out the specific reference to EN 300 220-1 (assuming that was what you meant), but did add a bit of reference to regulatory issues (since we aren't defining terminology for them, a little reminder of them is all that is needed). I already had changed all the lists that summarize the class numbers into tables; I was wondering whether examples in those tables help or give the impression the examples are the definition. In the end I did add the examples to the Ex table. I'm not sure we want to give too many examples for how the various classes go together; this would be ratholing quickly, and I trust readers will have enough phantasy to do this on their own. So this makes the -03, just submitted: Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-terminology-03 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lwig-terminology-03 In separate news, I've also added Ari Keränen as a co-author, who has supplied and edited some of the power text. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
