[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1982)

To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1982)
From: Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:41:15 -0800
Cc: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lisa.dusseault@xxxxxxxxx, alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx, harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ah@xxxxxxxxx, ietf-usefor@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200912281309.nBSD9x2R004474@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (RFC Errata System's message of "Mon, 28 Dec 2009 05:09:59 -0800 (PST)")
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: The Eyrie
References: <200912281309.nBSD9x2R004474@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Alfred Hoenes <ah@xxxxxxxxx>

> Section: 3.4.2, NOTE

> Original Text
> -------------
>        ... unintended repeat injection into the same network, ...
>                            ^

> Corrected Text
> --------------
>        ... unintended repeated injection into the same network, ...
>                            ^^^

I have no real objections to making this change, but I believe either form
is correct English.  The first reads slightly better to me personally.

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

References:
- [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1982)
  - From: RFC Errata System

Prev by Date: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1981)
Next by Date: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1983)
Previous by thread: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1982)
Next by thread: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5537 (1983)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread