Re: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data-02.txt

Hi,

as an individual contributor ...

It probably won't matter which you choose as long as you are
consistent.
And that consistency needs to be within the document and across WG
documents.
The RFC editor will usually demand consistency, whichever choice is
made.

dbh
David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net
ietfdbh@comcast.net
dharrington@huawei.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcpm-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Fernando Gont
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 12:38 AM
> To: David Borman
> Cc: tcpm-chairs@tools.ietf.org; tcpm@ietf.org WG; ayourtch@cisco.com
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data-02.txt
> 
> Hello, David,
> 
> >> If I were to s/were/was/, it looks like I should rephrase the
text
> >> as 'that a data byte that was received as "normal data"...'...
> > 
> [...]
> > If there are 12 cookies for sale, individually wrapped, you would
> > say: There are a dozen cookies for sale. But if they are being
sold
> > in a single package, you would say: There is a dozen cookies for
> > sale.
> 
> Got it ;-)
> 
> 
> > I think I've adequately explained my reasoning, so now you 
> can choose
> > which way to word it.  I'll be fine with whatever you choose.
> 
> As expected, I fixed all instances of data+plural.
> 
> Thanks for the English lesson... ;-) Being a second language, at
times
> it gets tricky....
> 
> P.S.: I've posted a rev that fixes this. It should be ready to ship.
> 
> Kind regards,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> 