Re: Missing RFC editor commit

Hi Russ,

>> Would it be possible to know what changes occur in USEPRO
>> between revision 5777 (March, 3rd) and revision 5921 (May, 25th)?
>
> I suspect it was too long for the mailing list.  I'll send it to you
> separately.

OK, thanks a lot!

Here are a few (minor) remarks:


@@ -476,13 +497,13 @@
-          <t>bar.isp.example relayed it to foo-news which, not being
+          <t>bar.isp.example relayed it to foo-news, which, not being
           convinced that it truly came from bar.isp.example, inserted the
           &lt;diag-keyword> "MISMATCH" and then stated that it received
           the article from the IPv6 address
           [2001:DB8:0:0:8:800:200C:417A].  (This is not to say that
           bar.isp.example was not a correct &lt;path-identity> for that
-          source but simply that that identity did not match the
+          source but simply that the identity did not match the
           expectations of foo-news.)</t>


Isn't there something better in English to say "that" in that case?
Because we have in the same sentence "that source" and "the identity";
it would be better to keep the meaning of "that identity".

"but simply that the expectations of foo-news were not matched
by that identity"?
Or another construction than "this is not to say that ... but that".



@@ -986,8 +1010,7 @@
             If it implements one of the mechanisms described in <xref
             target="history" />, this means that it MUST reject any
             article whose date falls outside the cutoff interval since it
-            won't know whether such articles had been accepted previously
-            or not.</t>
+            won't know whether or not such articles had been accepted previously.</t>

Is "or not" necessary?  Isn't "it won't know whether such articles" enough?
(It happens twice in the text.)


@@ -1249,23 +1272,26 @@
             <list style="numbers">
               <t>The message identifier of the news article should be
               preserved if at all possible, preferably as or within the
-              corresponding unique identifier of the other medium, but if
-              not at least as a comment in the message.  This helps
-              greatly with preventing loops.</t>
+              corresponding unique identifier of the other
+              medium. However, if it is not preserved in this way,
+              then at least it should be preserved
+              as a comment in the message.  This helps greatly with
+              preventing loops.</t>

Missing space before "However".



@@ -2412,8 +2497,9 @@
           <t>Additional media types are defined for improved
           structuring, specification, and automated processing of
-          control messages (<xref target="groupinfo" /> and <xref
-          target="checkgroup" />).</t>
+          control messages (Sections <xref target="groupinfo"
+          format="counter" /> and <xref
+          target="checkgroup" format="counter" />).</t>

It makes me notice that there is an inconsistency between "(Section x.y)"
and "(see Section x.y)" or equivalent in the RFC.  Most of the references
use "see" but a few, like this one, do not.  Shouldn't it be homogenized?

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Quo vadis ? » (saint Jean)