Subject: Re: [Ltru] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-17.txt

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:33:06 -0600

Martin Duerst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:

>> Although this thread is for the last call of 4645bis, I am wondering 
>> about the reason for the statement. "In some cases this value is 
>> before that of the associated 'Added' field in the registry.", since 
>> the ording of fields in 4645bis is not required.
>
> I have to agree this can be improved. From your quoting, it isn't 
> exactly clear, but it seems that you are proposing to add ", since the 
> ording of fields in 4645bis is not required." to this sentence. I 
> would propose to change this to ", since there is no prescribed ording 
> of the fields in a record."

(for "ording" read "ordering" throughout)

I thought it was fairly clear that the passage referred to the temporal 
relationship between the Added date and the Deprecated date, and Felix's 
reading of the passage as having to do with the order in which records 
appear within a field was a simple misunderstanding.  I don't see the 
need to actually drag the topic of field ordering into this passage. 
Just change "before" to "earlier than," please.

> I also have to say that "Deprecated's" feels really ugly. What about 
> changing this to:
>
> The field-body of a Deprecated field contains the date...

That would be OK, except that all the other bullet points in Section 
3.1.2 of the form "X's field-body..." must then also be changed, to 
retain the parallel structure.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ 

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru