- marked as proposal
-
assigned issue to
Nat Sakimura
BK Comments 3
Issue #86
invalid
Section 3
nit: should this section be 2.3 to get wrapped into “terminology”?
It might also be worth putting references in for the terms, though they
are largely common knowledge at this point.
Comments (3)
-
reporter
-
reporter
- edited description
-
reporter
- changed status to invalid
Not worth changing the section numbers.
- Log in to comment
I think it is OK as is. Even if we are to deal with it, it should be done at the end of process so that we do not mess up the section number.