read it the firs time, the RFC 2026 definition of "appeal"
jumped into my mind. That is not the intent here. Maybe it is just
me. Please consider rewording, especially since the RFC 2026 meaning
is used in Section 3.
I'll see if I can drum up a better synonym.
pr
--
Pete Resni
nk it should be a separate section.
Nits/editorial comments:
Section 3 the end of 2^nd paragraph "mechansisms" to "mechanisms"
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
___
"Additionally, [RFC6473] has defined a value of "application" for the
KIND property to represent software applications."?
I can put the two changes (this one, and the one suggest by PSA as
edited by Joe) in the RFC Editor notes of the tracker for the moment.
Who know, ma
On 9/21/12 10:23 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
It does.
Sorry. You said abstract, not intro. Got it.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)65
t worth mentioning that the LANG command really doesn't make this
issue worse than it already was.
Taken under advisement.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_
On 7/17/12 5:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 13:57 -0500 Pete Resnick
wrote:
Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this
document should be BCP and not Informational. It is not a
requirements document in the sense that it is layin
laying out requirements for future protocol
documents being developed by a WG; it is a consensus document listing
the requirements for the operation and administration of a type of
device. If that doesn't fall within the 2nd paragraph of RFC 2026
section 5, I don't know what does.
ions drawn in the draft.
I'm afraid you got distracted by Hector's question and didn't answer
SM's. Please do.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
___
566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com <http://bell-labs.com>,acm.org
<http://acm.org>} / vijay.gurb...@alcatel-lucent.com
<mailto:vijay.gurb...@alcatel-lucent.com>
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm
encoded *characters* are likely to be many more than 998 octets long. So
the change is to say that the limit is in octets, not in characters.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)65
.
bbb^^^
I wonder if there is an error in the third line and the text should
say "... limit to 998 octets" rather than "988". Otherwise, I can't
explain the 988 figure.
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualc
: 3839,4393,4337 Apple Inc.
Yup. That'll do it.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@iet
dates="1234,5678,9012"'.
But like I said, if you give me the list, I can just stick that in an
RFC Editor note instead of you submitting a new draft.
Your call.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)65
quot; listing in the metadata. You don't have to do another
update for this; I can do this in an RFC Editor Note, but I'd like to
enlist your assistance in getting the list of RFCs together.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorp
ncoded with a percent symbol. That would make the
text:
and single quote characters have special meaning and
so MUST themselves be percent encoded.
^^^
This comment also applies to the last paragraph in Section 4.2.
- I don't understand why Sections 3 and
in the text
I've entered an RFC Editor note that updates the document to
reference this RFC.
Added.
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1341 (Obsoleted by RFC 1521)
According to authors this reference is intentional.
It is.
Thanks David (and Alexey).
pr
--
Pete Resnick &
arge amount of ABNF.
It has had a good scouring, but additional review is always welcome.
>About the X-* header fields IMHO there is nothing to change in this document.
Good. I like that answer.
Thanks again.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incor
101 - 117 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
