Hi! I looked at outbound-03:
* Add 'ASN.1 schema' to the list of code-like components in
the first
paragraph of 6.3.
Justification: ASN.1 schemas is commonly used in RFCs and
they need to
be extracted and put into implementations. As far as I
can tell,
ASN.1 schemas are much more common than some of the other
examples
given. Grepping for 'XML RelaxNG' in my local RFC archive
results in
no hits?
* Change 'classical programming code' to 'classical
programming code
(e.g., C code) or declarations (e.g., C header files)'.
Justification: Right now the status of header files is
unclear. As
Sam just pointed out, this causes problems for
implementers.
* The document says:
Additionally, the Trustees of the IETF Trust should
define a
textually representation to be included in an IETF
contribution to
indicate that a portion of the document is considered by
the authors
(and later the working group, and upon approval the
IETF) to be
code, and to be subject to the permissions granted to
use code.
I suggest to specify the markup in this document, to
something like:
'>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
;>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
;CODE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
;<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
;<<<'
...
'>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
;>>>>>>>>>>>>>END
CODE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<'
Justification: The current text will lead to delays until
people can
start to use the markup. Defining a markup is not
complicated.
If we are worried about not being able to easily change
the markup
later (which would cause confusion), it could be explained
that the
given markup is intended as the initial markup, and the
Trustees can
alter the definition if they so desire.
* The last sentence of section 6.4 doesn't parse as English
to me.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg ietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|
