At Sun, 26 Feb 2017 06:43:54 -0800, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I still think lack of details about versionning and what requires (or > not) to bump the version number is a mistake.
I added a sentence stating that incompatible changes to syntax or semantics require a new version number, which seems kind of obvious. Beyond that, it's pretty much impossible to say whether a change is compatible without knowing the details of a particular proposed change, so I see little to be gained in hypothetical discussion. If you need something more than this, please send text or point to an example of what you want (and, with respect, a hint at what it's intended to accomplish), because at this point I do not have a clue. > RFC 2616 (HTTP) got obsoleted, please reference the latest version. Oops, sorry. Done. > In 2.5: is the list of error reasons extensible? If yes, should you have > an IANA registry for them? No current plan to extend the set of error reasons. > In Section 5 you should reference this document (and not just section > numbers), as IANA registrations cut & pasted to IANA website as separate > files. I assume you meant section 4, since I don't think IANA publishes Security Considerations. Draft -11 had already added [[RFCxxxx]] to the media type template in the IANA Considerations section, per your earlier instructions, and there are no section numbers in the media type template. Am I missing something here? Given the impending dreadline, I posted -12. If this is close enough, cool, otherwise tell me what to do and we'll fix it. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
