Re: Comments on draft-eastlake-additional-xmlsec-uris-07.txt

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Donald,
At 07:37 07-02-2013, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>As I say, although I frequently put them near the front of my Internet
>Drafts, the RFC Editor always moves them to the end.

I understood. :-)

>they ask not to be listed. Anyway, my practice is not because anyone
>has asked to be listed nearer the beginning of the document but
>because I think they deserve to be so listed.

I like the practice.

>Well, I could rename Section 5 to be "Allocation Considerations" and
>provide two subsection, one "5.1 IANA Considerations" and one "5.2 W3C
>Allocation Considerations" or the like and perhaps also move some of
>the material at the beginning of Section 2 down to 5.2.

The IANA Considerations will be removed on publication.  You could 
move it to 5.2 and do the above.

>RFC4648 is Informational, so that would cause yet another downref. RFC
>2045 has not bee obsoleted and seems fine to me for this purpose.

I forgot about the Informational status.  It's easier to avoid the down-ref.

Regards,
-sm