Hi Megan, Rob, Thank you both for your responses. This does indeed seem valid English syntax however, it doesn't seem to be used much in common parlance.
Apologies for the noise. Also, last sentence of RFC7855 on page 3: Hence, the policy is instantiated in the packet header and does not requires any policy state in midpoints and tail-ends. "require" ? Kind regards, James. On 6 June 2018 at 17:39, Megan Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rob and James, > > Regarding “consist in”: > > While this construction appears in past RFCs and is not incorrect, we find a > number of readers are not > familiar with it and think that an error exists. We would not update text > that uses it appropriately; > however, the familiarity issue may be something to keep in mind for future > writing. > > Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. > > RFC Editor/mf > > > > On Jun 6, 2018, at 1:00 AM, Rob Shakir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi James, >> >> Thanks for reporting this. >> >> I think that "consists in" is actually what is meant here. The Cambridge >> dictionary definition is a useful reference. >> >> IMHO, the intention of this sentence is to say that the important/necessary >> characteristic of the alternate strategy is that it provides protection >> along the shortest path. This might not be the most common English, but it >> does seem to be correct. >> >> The RFC Editor folks are likely to be the experts here -- I'd welcome their >> comment too. >> >> Thanks, >> r. >> >> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:53 AM James Bensley <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 6 June 2018 at 08:21, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Original Text >> > ------------- >> > An alternative protection strategy consists in >> >> Alternatively, "consists of", is "in" the wrong preposition here? >> >> Kind regards, >> James. > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
