Hiya,
On 28/11/2020 04:39, Gary Gapinski wrote:
Looking at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09> §2: * §2 ¶5 has «TLS 1.3, specified in TLSv1.3 [RFC8446]…». * §2 ¶4 has «TLSv1.2, specified in RFC5246 [RFC5246]…» * §2 ¶3 has «TLS 1.1, specified in [RFC4346]…» Were these variant ( specified in plaintext+[link], specified in link+[link], specified in [link] ) citation forms deliberate?
Nope. We'll make 'em more consistent.
TLS 1.2 was given a "v" for version; the others not.
Ack,
§2 ¶1 cites RFC 7457 twice with hyperlinks. The document references in square brackets link directly to the documents; elsewhere in the document, many square-bracketed document references are intra-document links to §10, though RFC references seem mostly to be direct (i.e., not intra-document). Perhaps all square-bracketed links should be intra-document links to §10? RFC 7322 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.html> seems adopt the same seemingly arbitrary (some links are direct; some intra-document) hyperlinking without any related etiquette guidance.
Those links are tool-generated and not part of the document source. I'll double check but I think the change required there is a tooling change and nothing to do with this draft. Thanks, S.
Regards, Gary _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
