Hi,
>>> I realized that I hadn't replied to this. Sorry for that.
>>
>> No problems; we agreed yours was a good idea and just went ahead.
>>
>>> I see that you have submitted a new version (-05), and the way you have
>>> covered the "Expert Review Procedure" and " Preferred Format for the
>>> Co
Hi Christer,
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 09:19, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Sure, but I don't understand the "virtual" thing. If you are going to
> call something "virtual" I think you need to explain the reasoning.
The reasoning is that an existing RFC is read-only. Therefore, the
"actual" ToC of RFC
Hi,
>>> Sure, but I don't understand the "virtual" thing. If you are going to
>>> call something "virtual" I think you need to explain the reasoning.
>>
>> The reasoning is that an existing RFC is read-only. Therefore, the "actual"
>> ToC
>> of RFC7252 doesn't change as a result of this update.
