Hi all,
Thank you so much for all the changes and discussion to align on them!
As a co-author, I have reviewed the diffs and the recent HTML version,
and I approve of the changes.
Best,
Reese
On 12/4/24 10:03, Megan Ferguson wrote:
All,
Thank you for your replies. We have updated the tit
Hi Megan,
Thank you, looks good to me now. I agree with all the changes.
Best,
Reese
On 12/9/24 09:40, Megan Ferguson wrote:
Hi Reese (and Michael),
Thanks for pointing these out. We have updated as requested.
Two notes:
1) FYI: We did a little digging for the strange break in “implementa
Hi Michael, Megan, all
Thank you for taking on the monumental task of figuring out the
capitalization. We indeed owe you a beer, Michael.
I looked at the differences in RFC-to-be-9622 and 9623, and most of the
changes look good to me, except for the cases below.
I'm not quite sure about th
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the answers, please see inline:
On 12/18/24 21:01, Michael Welzl wrote:
On Dec 19, 2024, at 7:23 AM, Reese Enghardt wrote:
I'm not quite sure about the "Cellular" in 9622 in Section 6.2,
shouldn't this instance be kept lower case?
"(i.e.,
an interface type prefere
Hi all,
Thank you Michael for the replies and the spotted issues, and thank you
Megan and the RFC Editor for the excellent editing work!
Reading through the diff just now, the following bits stood out to me:
Section 4.1.3:
Just wanting to make sure it doesn't get lost, as it looked like th
