On 11/28/20 10:13 AM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
Hiya,
On 28/11/2020 04:39, Gary Gapinski wrote:
Looking at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09> §2:
* §2 ¶5 has «TLS 1.3, specified in TLSv1.3 [RFC8446]…».
* §2 ¶4 has «TLSv1.2, specified in RFC5246 [RFC5246]…»
* §2 ¶3 has «TLS 1.1, specified in [RFC4346]…»
Were these variant ( specified in plaintext+[link], specified in link+[link],
specified in [link] ) citation forms deliberate?
Nope. We'll make 'em more consistent.
There are still "double cites" — …RFCnnnn [RFCnnnn]… — visible in
the draft 10 HTML. Perhaps an RFC tooling problem as you had
suspected.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
