Editors, Yes, because of its higher value that row can only apply to version 7 and does not have the ambiguity of the unassigned value-less-than-16 rows.
Brian S. On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 4:16 PM Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 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
