The draft seems to have a few (looks like Python) code blocks embedded in it.
Consider enclosing them within <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> markers to
identify them as code components for licensing purposes.
The draft seems to refer to an obsoleted version of the SDP spec RFC4566
which was obsoleted by RFC8866. Unless there is something specific in the old
SDP needed for this draft, it probably makes sense to refer to the newer RFC.
This PR makes the following changes:
Ensures that all pseudocode blocks are properly marked, which causes them to render as <sourcecode> in XML. I presume this is sufficient for licensing purposes.
Suresh Krishnan provided the following comments:
The draft seems to have a few (looks like Python) code blocks embedded in it. Consider enclosing them within
<CODE BEGINS>and<CODE ENDS>markers to identify them as code components for licensing purposes.The draft seems to refer to an obsoleted version of the SDP spec RFC4566 which was obsoleted by RFC8866. Unless there is something specific in the old SDP needed for this draft, it probably makes sense to refer to the newer RFC.
This PR makes the following changes:
<sourcecode>in XML. I presume this is sufficient for licensing purposes.