On 16 Oct 2007 at 20:53 -0500, Mary Barnes allegedly wrote: > [MB] We did debate this in the WG as someone else had the same > suggestion as yourself. But, it was agreed that the original > deliverable was defined to be standards track, so we kept it that way. > [/MB]
I figured as much. > - Some of the language could be edited for clarity, but that is not > enough to stop the document since it's not in a protocol > specification. For example, "The conference object identifier is > created both by the conferencing system based on internal actions > as well as based on specific conference protocol requests.". > [MB] I won't disagree that the wording may be awkward in some places - > partly due to multiple editors and other cases as a result of careful > wording to reflect WG decisions. I'm hoping that anything really > untoward could be fixed by the RFC editor. But, if you could ship a list > of the worst offenders, I can make a pass through and tidy up before we > progress. [/MB] I'll add it to the list :-). No promises but I'll try. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
