Brian, Regarding Table 1 in the RFC-to-be 9713 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713.txt), which corresponds to https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/bundle.xhtml#admin-record-types, is it accurate that there is no change to this row?
| 7 | 16 - | Unassigned | | | | 64383 | | | Thank you. RFC Editor/ar On Jan 10, 2025, at 12:36 PM, Brian Sipos <brian.sipos+i...@gmail.com> wrote: > 6) I'm trying to find some example of similar overloaded code point tables > outside of the Bundle Protocol registry group, but failing to do so. There is > no implication that assignments in that range need to apply to both version 6 > and 7. Other tables in the Bundle Protocol registry group leave the version > column empty for the unassigned values, so it's probably best to do so here > also. > > Table 1 > OLD: > | 6,7 | 3 | Unassigned | | > | 6,7 | 5 to 15 | Unassigned | | > NEW: > | | 3 | Unassigned | | > | | 5 to 15 | Unassigned | | > > Related to this table, I see that there have been some edits to replace "X to > Y" numbering with "X-Y". Is this the consistent way to indicate this in > registries? I was trying to avoid using the hyphen to not confuse it with a > negative sign, but whatever is consistent is the right way. -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
