Re: Some editorial comments about RFC 5234

Frank Ellermann wrote: 

>Nicolas Krebs wrote:
>> urn:ietf:rfc:5234
>Yes, STD 68 got its numbers about three weeks ago.  
>Because the text-fragment-09 and mailto-bis-04 I-Ds
>are older they still reference RFC 4234.  

>My copy of news-nntp-uri-09 references RFC 5234, 
>if your copy references 4234 it's unauthorized ;-)

Sorry, my mistake. I did not noticed the change in -09. 

But i have a question about 
urn:ietf:id:draft-ellermann-news-nntp-uri-09 . Have you read
| From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at>
| Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:18:34 -0800 (PST)
| From: Charles Lindsey <chl at>
| Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:31:21 GMT

>> In urn:ietf:id:draft-duerst-mailto-bis-04 please
>> replace each "[RFCXXXX]" by "[I-D.ietf-eai-mailto]", 
>> each "[RFCYYYY]" by "[I-D.ietf-eai-utf8headers]"
>Wait, you found that in draft-ietf-eai-mailto-00,
>this is NOT the same as I-D.duerst-mailto-bis-04.

Indeed. It's a typo of me (copy-paste is usefull, but you need to copy
the right piece of text), as you can see in the following/sequel text 
in my message 
| and in section 8 "Normative References"

>The EAI mailto-00 draft was posted close to the
>cutoff, various nits are already reported on the
>EAI list.   The new eai-mailto draft references
>mailto-bis, that is as it should be.
> Frank

Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 21:29:54 UTC