This is better by far than its predecessor. Quite clear. Almost ready. I do wonder why we do not use the word "English" anywhere. It might be most helpful here:
> The policy for the RFC Series is that all displayable text is allowed as > long as the reader of an RFC can interpret that text. "[...] as long as an **English-speaking** reader of an RFC can interpret that text" might be better. As a nit, the exceptions could be better structured: > Note that this policy only applies to normative or descriptive text; text > such as names does not need character description. Further, some RFC authors > might choose to use something other than the "U+NNNN" syntax to describing > characters, such as if the RFC already covers a different syntax that the > reader will understand from the rest of the RFC. Could be: > This policy applies only to normative or descriptive text. Names and > examples require different treatment; see sections X and Y respectively. The text on U+nNnN alternatives can be moved to the preceding paragraph, which addresses that point. On Wed, Oct 15, 2025, at 10:39, Pete Resnick wrote: > Apparently I am inept with the datatracker, so this message serves as > the start of a 2-week WGLC for draft-rswg-rfc7997bis-05. Find the > document here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rswg-rfc7997bis/ > > We've already had a few comments on the list. At the conclusion of the > WGLC, I'll have Paul roll a -06 covering those comments and, if all > looks good, I can toss it over the wall to the RSAB. > > pr > > -- > rswg mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
