Hi,
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 December 2016 16:23
>
> Hi,
>
>>Thanks for the review, it dovetails nicely with other feedback I've
>>received.
>>
>>Elsewhere this text has been suggested for the abstract:
>>
>>> This document provides a
the lines of:
"it aims to be backwards compatible except where incremental changes are
inherited from specifications published since RFC 1738." That's pretty much
what it says in Appendix A.
Cheers
--
Matthew Kerwin | Queensland University of Technology |
On 10 December 2014 at 10:49, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
(yes, I think this should be a 'should', not a 'SHOULD').
Not an 'ought to'?
--
Matthew Kerwin
http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
