Re: ABNF nits

[Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Alexey Melnikov" <aamelnikov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> There are only two references to USEAGE in the document (3.8 and 3.9).
>> Personally, I think they're expendible.  If USEAGE isn't going to be
>> published, I think the best resolution is to just remove them.  I'd
>> rather not cite an I-D in a published RFC, and I suspect the RFC Editor
>> would have similar qualms.

> See my reply to Frank's message.

Okay, I can leave it in.

>> I can also include the template in the document easily enough if the
>> working group thinks that's the right thing to do.  Does anyone else
>> have an opinion?

> I think that is the right thing to do.

Now included.

I should probably upload another draft, but I'll give it a day or two for
people to turn up any additional concerns that should be addressed in the
next draft.  I will put out another version by the 28th, after which I
will be unavailable to do working-group work for a week or two.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>