Changes between Version 5 and Version 6 of Ticket #502


Ignore:
Timestamp:
29/10/13 15:53:09 (9 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #502 – Description

    v5 v6  
    5151
    5252
    53 In Section 8.5.1:
     53~~In Section 8.5.1:~~
    5454
    55   'The registration SHOULD name a set of expected "protocol-version" tokens associated with that token at the time of registration.'
     55  ~~'The registration SHOULD name a set of expected "protocol-version" tokens associated with that token at the time of registration.'~~
    5656
    57 Why is this a RFC 2119 "should"?
     57~~Why is this a RFC 2119 "should"?~~
    5858
    59   "The IESG MAY reassign responsibility for a protocol token.  This will normally only be used in the case when a responsible party cannot be contacted."
     59  ~~"The IESG MAY reassign responsibility for a protocol token.  This will normally only be used in the case when a responsible party cannot be contacted."~~
    6060
    61 I suggest using plain English instead of RFC 2119 key words for the above (and for the rest of the text in Section 8.5.1).
     61~~I suggest using plain English instead of RFC 2119 key words for the above (and for the rest of the text in Section 8.5.1).~~ - see #509
    6262
    6363
    … …  
    7070
    7171
    72 In Section 8.4, the RFC 2119 key words are not needed as that section is about a procedure for registration. Plain English is usually clear enough.
     72~~In Section 8.4, the RFC 2119 key words are not needed as that section is about a procedure for registration. Plain English is usually clear enough.~~ - see #509
    7373
    7474