Subject: [Bug 20] lock token example

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:34:40 -0700

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20

[email-masked] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2005-10-15 16:34 -------
I think I've got all the strays now, in the text for -08.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:46:56 +0200

[email-masked] wrote:
 > ...

This doesn't look like an improvement -- the spec now uses syntactically 
invalid tokens in the "opaquelocktoken" scheme.

Could you please make sure that the spec always uses registered URI 
schemes, and when doing so, uses URIs that are actually syntactically legal?

Best regards, Julian