Hiya,
On 14/12/2020 19:25, Gary Gapinski wrote:
On 11/28/20 10:13 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:Hiya, On 28/11/2020 04:39, Gary Gapinski wrote:Looking at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09> §2: * §2 ¶5 has «TLS 1.3, specified in TLSv1.3 [RFC8446]…». * §2 ¶4 has «TLSv1.2, specified in RFC5246 [RFC5246]…» * §2 ¶3 has «TLS 1.1, specified in [RFC4346]…» Were these variant ( specified in plaintext+[link], specified in link+[link], specified in [link] ) citation forms deliberate?Nope. We'll make 'em more consistent.There are still "double cites" — …RFCnnnn [RFCnnnn]… — visible in the draft 10 HTML. Perhaps an RFC tooling problem as you had suspected.
Probably not all, but the RFC editor will eventually sort that kind of thing out according to their preferred style so I left it be (also being a little bit lazy, I admit:-) Cheers, S.
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
