> Thanks very much for your comments. I was a little over-zealous :). Does
this diff address your concerns?
>Works for me.
Merged into the editor's copy. Thanks.
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
Hi Rich,
On 29/11/2021 15:43, Salz, Rich wrote:
Alexey,
Thanks very much for your comments. I was a little over-zealous :). Does this
diff address your concerns?
Works for me.
Best Regards,
Alexey
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.
Alexey,
Thanks very much for your comments. I was a little over-zealous :). Does this
diff address your concerns?
It's also at https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/37
; g diff
diff --git a/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis.md b/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis.md
index bf8eb3d..8f1080e 1
Hi Rich,
I've noticed some recent changes to the document that don't look right
to me:
3. Designing Application Protocols
This section defines how protocol designers should reference this
document, which MUST be a normative reference in their specification.
This is kind of a funny "MU
