Hi Michael, Megan, all
Thank you for taking on the monumental task of figuring out the
capitalization. We indeed owe you a beer, Michael.
I looked at the differences in RFC-to-be-9622 and 9623, and most of the
changes look good to me, except for the cases below.
I'm not quite sure about the "Cellular" in 9622 in Section 6.2,
shouldn't this instance be kept lower case?
"(i.e.,
an interface type preference might be based on a user's preference to
avoid being charged more for a Cellular data plan)."
I assume "Cellular" means a specific value set in the API, whereas
"cellular" refers to the concept of a cellular network in general. If
that's true, shouldn't "cellular" be kept lower case here, as this
sentence refers to the concept of a cellular network in general?
I agree with all the other capitalization of "Cellular", as those refer
to a specific value set in the API.
And in 9623 in Section 4.1.2, I see the following occurrence of the
currently unchanged "Protocol option", shouldn't that one be capitalized
"Protocol Options" as well?
"Protocol options are next checked in order. "
Further, shouldn't Protocol Instance stay upper-case in the following
four instances in Section 7.2 of 9623, as I assume we mean the Protocol
Instance as defined in 9261?
"the Transport Services
Implementation is responsible for notifying the protocol instance of
the change."
"For protocols that do not support multipath or migration, the
protocol instances should be informed of the path change,"
"Thus, while it is useful for a
protocol instance to be aware of a temporary loss of connectivity,"
" the Transport Services Implementation should
also inform the Protocol Instance about potentially new paths that
become permissible"
Same for the two instances in Section 9.2:
" In addition to protocol state, protocol instances should provide data
into a performance-oriented cache to help guide future protocol and
path selection"
"Besides protocol instances, other system entities
may also provide data into performance-oriented caches."
Plus, I found one typo in Section 10.3:
" in response to Abort ations. "
Thanks again for everyone's work on these documents!
Best,
Reese
On 12/17/24 10:34, Michael Welzl wrote:
Dear all,
I am now finished with the capitalization task for the entire cluster.
I’m attaching “before” and “after” versions of the XML files
(filenames “-OLD.xml” and “-NEW.xml”).
I would like to say that I approve publication (as Megan wrote, please
see here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C508 - everyone needs to
approve everything so this can go ahead!), but this update was so big
and I think it’s important to get this right due to our special use of
capitals to indicate the abstract element offered to the application,
versus small letters to indicate elements related to the transport
protocols below.
So, I would like to give it 1-2 days, in the hope that some of my
co-authors here take a look at the diffs and either make corrections
or say that they approve. Let’s get a few approvals from you others,
and then let’s quickly all approve, please. I believe that this is the
very last thing we have to do here!
TO MY CLUSTER CO-AUTHORS:
The best way to look at these files is to upload them here:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff
Also, I think it’s fair to say that, at this point, *each and every
one of you* owes me a beer :-)))
Cheers,
Michael
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
