[rfc-i] Review of v3 vocabulary

[julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)]

On 2014-11-05 17:40, ietf at augustcellars.com wrote:
> ...
>  > Section 2.31 if only one allowed,the draft processor might remove the
>  > <link> element ?
>
> What do you mean by "if only one allowed"?
>
> [JLS]. In section 2.45 - one optional <link> element.
> ...

Yes, that's bug in the grammar.

> ...
>  > A.2.1.2does the word default imply a processor action?
>
> Context? I don't see "default" here.
>
> [JLS] typo.  Should be A.2.1.1

No, it doesn't imply a processor action.

>  > A.2.1.3 is this incompatible independentrfcs?
>
> I believe so.
>
> (Note that this whole appendix is a copy from draft-reschke-xml2rfc,
> which is due to be published as RFC soon).
>
> [JLS]. I would run this past the ISE.   I have reason to believe that
> this is acceptable for the ISE to request publishing a document with.

I believe this has already been done.

>  > Section 2.45.7 why a single section? Section 2.45.7isthis numbers or
>  > strings rfc XXXX for rfcs?
>
> "Single section"? No context.
> [JLS]. Sorry the first comment should refer to section 2.45.5 - I hate
> this keyboard.

It's a single section for historical reasons. It's not in use anymore 
for the current values of @ipr.

> "A comma-separated list of RFC numbers or Internet-Draft names."
> [JLS]. Do you consider a draft name to have a version number?

Yes.

>  > 2.43 - how do I do <references title=references><references
>  > title=normative/> or is that no longer allowed?
>
> It's there, isn't it?
> [JLS] not according t the content model,

I'm confused. How is <t> relevant here?

 > ...

Best regards, Julian