OK. Thank you for your prompt reply. RFC Editor/ar
> On Jan 17, 2025, at 1:20 PM, Brian Sipos <brian.sipos+i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
