[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: AD review: draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-rtt-option-03



On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

>> Lars is right, "cannot" is far more idiomatic, in written or spoken text.
>> 
>> http://www.drgrammar.org/frequently-asked-questions#30
>> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/cannot.html
> 
> This seems editorial, the authors will take advice from the RFC-Ed.

Ok, may I suggest that you leave the "cannot" parts to RFC Editor. I think Lars said he is ok with that resolution. But could you take care of the other comments?

Regarding the other discussion that took place over the weekend: there was a WG consensus to adopt this draft last September. There were multiple supporting voices, no one objected. General discussion on DCCP's deployment situation may be interesting, but is pointless for the progress of this draft. Therefore, could you please focus on technical issues related to this draft in your responses to this mail thread, thank you! (The best time to raise technical issues would have been during WGLC, but I don't think it is too late yet)

- Pasi




[Kernel List]     [Linux DCCP]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Networking]     [Git]     [Security]     [Linux Assembly]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [DDR & Rambus]     [Linux Resources]

Powered by Linux