Hi Jinmei,
I'm not going to talk about the document itself.
JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote: [cut]
EDITORIAL COMMENTS
15. this draft uses the term "Neighbour", but for this particular term, I guess we should stick to the US standard "Neighbor", because the base documents such as RFC2461 use the latter, and people may search for related documents with (e.g.) "grep -i neighbor rfc*.txt".
(In this sense, I don't care about "behaviour":-)
based on my local archive:
grep -i neighbour rfc*txt | wc -l
297
grep -i neighbor rfc*txt | wc -l
7695
it seems the RFC editors aren't checking this:
grep -c neighbour rfc*txt | sort -tc -n +1 | grep -v '^rfc[0-9]*.txt:0' |tail -10
rfc2722.txt:1
rfc2811.txt:1
rfc2813.txt:1
rfc2815.txt:1
rfc3208.txt:4
rfc3519.txt:1
rfc3549.txt:1
rfc3719.txt:3
rfc3765.txt:9
rfc3787.txt:1
Is it really important to have the text generated by one English speaking author (in this case an Australian) homologated to another dialect?
Greg
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
