Hi Aijun, We question whether sourcecode type=“abnf" is correct because Section 2.1 includes the following:
2.1. Use of RBNF The message formats in this document are illustrated using Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding, as specified in [RFC5511]. There is no mention of ABNF in the document. If the sourcecode type is ABNF, please note that we will add a normative reference to RFC 5234. Please review and let us know if the sourcecode type should be updated. > On Mar 3, 2025, at 7:49 PM, Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> wrote: > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element > in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred > values for "type" > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types) > does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. > Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. > -->[WAJ]. The "type" attribute of each source code element in this XML file, > should be "ABNF", instead of "xbnf", please update them (it seems there are > only two occurrences) Thank you, RFC Editor/sg -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
