----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot(_at_)mnot(_dot_)net>
To: "t.petch" <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com>
Cc: "IETF Discussion" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
<draft-gregorio-uritemplate(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 1:47 AM
On 01/12/2011, at 9:50 PM, t.petch wrote:
2.3
Is undefined formally defined? This section suggests that 'undef' or 'null',
inter alia, may be used to undefine a variable while 3.2 uses 'null'. I see
no
more formal definition of how to undefine a variable, as opposed to it having
a
value or having an empty value.
Based on previous feedback, we're making a forward reference to 3.2.1 to clarify
this.
1.2
worth pointing out that 'reserved' and 'unreserved' are formally defined in
1.5,
to stop people reaching for RFC3986.
If this is an issue, I'd actually prefer to place the notational conventions
section higher in the document. Thoughts?
<tp>
No, I would not.
I think that this I-D, unlike many, gets the sequence right, of explanation,
formal definition and then the nitty-gritty. Moving 1.5 higher up would impair
that. Rather, I would insert
'reserved and unreserved are formally defined in section 1.5 using the same
definitions as appear in [RFC3986]'
after the first paragraph of 1.2.
Tom Petch
The examples are rather complicated. If I have a month to spare, I will work
my
way through them by which time, were I to find anything,
doubtless it would be erratum time and no longer LC time.
(How simple life was in the days of -00).
Thanks for the feedback,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf