Hi, On 4月22日, 午前1:56, Anthony Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: > we are close! > > please check the diff, changes are very minor. we need to check out > the MIME type registration too. > > RFC AUTHOR(S): > -------------- > > This is your LAST CHANCE to make changes to your RFC to be: > draft-bryan-metalink-28.txt, once the document is published as > an RFC we *WILL NOT* make any changes. > > Please check your document at: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5854.txt > > For your convenience, a diff file that compares the original > Internet-Draft and the RFC is posted here: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5854-diff.html > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:40 PM > Subject: Re: AUTH48 [MF]: RFC 5854 <draft-bryan-metalink-28.txt> NOW AVAILABLE > To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected], Lisa Dusseault > <[email protected]>, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that after you have approved the document, > post-xml2rfc changes will be made to update the header and > boilerplate as described in RFC 5741. > --> > > 2) <!-- [rfced] A. Bryan, would you like to add an organization here? > Or be listed as "Consultant"? Just checking - although we note that your > answer was "No" regarding RFC 5843. --> > > 3) <!-- [rfced] T. Tsujikawa, would you like to add an organization here? > Or be listed as "Consultant"? --> > My answer is no
> 4) <!-- [rfced] N. McNab, would you like to add an organization here? Or > be listed as "Consultant"? --> > > 5) <!--[rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use onhttp://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. --> > I could not have any good keyword so far. Seeing couple of RFC, they have no keyword. > 6) <!--[rfced] Please rephrase to make the sentence above more clear. > The suggested sentence looks good for me. Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa > Original: > Every URI [RFC3986] is also > an IRI, so a URI may be used wherever below an IRI is named. > > Suggested: > Every URI [RFC3986] is also > an IRI, so a URI may be used wherever an IRI is named below. > --> > > 7) <!-- [rfced] In the ABNF below, in the rule for separators, > should <"> be changed to DQUOTE ? > > This note is from Bill's ABNF parser > (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap/abnf.cgi) > > fyi: suggest DQUOTE or %x22 instead of <">. > --> > > token = 1*<any CHAR except CTLs or separators> > separators = "(" / ")" / "<" / ">" / "@" > / "," / ";" / ":" / "" / <"> > / "/" / "[" / "]" / "?" / "=" > / "{" / "}" / SP / HTAB > agent = token ["/" agent-version] > agent-version = token > > 8) > This specification describes Metalink's XML markup vocabulary. > > <!--[rfced] Is "XML markup" redundant? That is, could this be changed > to "Metalink's XML vocabulary"? --> > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ah > > On Apr 19, 2010, at 7:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2010/04/19 > > *NOTE* -- Change in Copyright Notice and Legends > for IETF and IAB Stream Documents > > With the publication of BCP 78 / RFC 5378, the copyright notice and > legends changed as of 10 November 2008. A revision to the "Legal > Provisions Relating to IETF Documents", effective 15 February > 2009, contains optional text in Section 6.c.iii to address the issue > of pre-RFC 5378 material. Please review RFC 5378 and the text > located athttp://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/. > > The RFC 5378 copyright notice and legends are being applied to your > document in one of the following ways: > > 1. If the document was submitted to the RFC Editor without the RFC > 5378 copyright notice, your document will be updated with the RFC > 5378 copyright notice and legends and will include the optional text > from Section 6.c.iii of "Legal Provisions Relating to IETF > Documents" (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) on the > assumption that your document may contain material from an IETF I-D > or RFC made public before 10 November 2008, the date that RFC 5378 > was published. > > Please advise if you believe there is no such material in your > document and we will remove the 6.c.iii notice. > > 2. If the document was submitted with the RFC 5378 copyright notice and > legends, we have applied the corresponding copyright to your > RFC-to-be, including the optional 6.c.iii paragraph if present. > > Please let us know if any changes are required. > > For more information regarding the copyright notice and legends, > please see the discussion at [email protected]. Also, you can send > copyright questions to [email protected]. > > RFC AUTHOR(S): > -------------- > > ** AUTH48 in XML > ** Please update the XML source file available from > **http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5854.xml > ** to submit changes during AUTH48. See instructions below. > > This is your LAST CHANCE to make changes to your RFC to be: > draft-bryan-metalink-28.txt, once the document is published as > an RFC we *WILL NOT* make any changes. > > Please check your document at: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5854.txt > > (Note: the placement of page breaks will be handled at the final > stage.) > > For your convenience, a diff file that compares the original > Internet-Draft and the RFC is posted here: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5854-diff.html > > Please do the following: > > 1) Review the entire document carefully, especially > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > 2) Address any comments from the RFC Editor that appear > in the XML file as <!-- [rfced] ... -->. > > 3) Send your changes by updating the XML source file > available here: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5854.xml > > Or, send your approval of the document. > > 4) When applicable, review the changes sent by your coauthors. > We assume that you will speak up if you object. That is, > your silence will indicate your assent to changes submitted > by your coauthors. > > NOTE: This document will not be published until each author has > provided their approval for the content of this document. > > 5) Review the copyright notice and legends defined in RFC 5378 and > indicate whether the text from Section 6.c.iii needs to be > included in this document. > > **Note: If the changes are more than editorial, we will contact the > Area Director to confirm that the changes are acceptable and do not > require wider review. > > The editing process occasionally introduces errors, and although the > RFC Editor tries very hard to catch all errors, typos can slip > through. As an author of the RFC, you are taking responsibility for > the correctness of the final product when you OK publication. You > should therefore proofread the entire RFC carefully and without > assumptions. > > Please reply, as this document will not be published until we receive > agreement from ALL listed authors that the document is ready for > publication. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC5854 (draft-bryan-metalink-28) > -------------------------------------- > Title : The Metalink Download Description Format > Author(s) : A. Bryan, T. Tsujikawa, N. McNab, P. Poeml > WG Chair(s) : > IESG Contact : L. Dusseault, P. Saint-Andre > > -- > (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [http://www.metalinker.org] > )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Metalink Discussion" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en.
