Jonathan Hansford <jonat...@hansfords.net> wrote: > If that misinterpretation has already happened for (at least) one > individual, would it be worth adding the clarification and remove the > ambiguity?
Sure. The words "not a non-presence container" occurs a couple of times throughout the document. Would it be correct to write "not a non-presence-container"? /martin > > Jonathan > > > > From: William Lupton > Sent: 14 October 2015 23:28 > To: Martin Bjorklund > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] not a non-presence container > > > Thanks. I see now. As you will have realised, I parsed "not a > non-presence container" as "(not a non-presence) container" (WRONG) > rather than "not a (non-presence container)" (RIGHT). Cheers, W. > > On 14 October 2015 at 20:41, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: > William Lupton <w...@cantab.net> wrote: > > All, > > > > Both RFC 6020 and the bis draft use the term "not a non-presence > > container", sometimes with a reference to section 7.5.1. > > > > Does this term mean the same as "presence container"? > > No. A list (for example) is not a non-presence container. > > > If so, I think it > > would be easier (on the reader!) to say that instead. If not, I think > > that > > the term warrants a mention in section 7.5.1. > > The term is "non-presence container", and it is explained in 7.5.1. > > > /martin > > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
