Skip to content

Conversation

@PieterKas
Copy link
Collaborator

Editorial updates suggested by Dan Moore: See issue #236

Editorial updates suggested by Dan Moore: See issue #236
@PieterKas PieterKas requested a review from tulshi as a code owner November 17, 2025 12:11
@PieterKas PieterKas requested review from gffletch and tulshi and removed request for tulshi November 17, 2025 12:11
Added editorial updates and clarified scope changes.
Copy link
Collaborator

@gffletch gffletch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm good with this PR. I did leave a comment about a line referencing replacement transaction tokens. I'm OK merging this PR and then cleaning up the replacement stuff in another PR.

@PieterKas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@gffletch, I reverted the change I made. @tulshi PR on replacement transaction tokens should remove all of the replacement token text.

Copy link
Collaborator

@gffletch gffletch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we good with putting normative requirements in the security considerations section?

@PieterKas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@gffletch - yes, I think it is OK to have normative language regarding security considerations.

There was merge conflicts, so will need you to approve again before it can be merged (or if you can just merge it, it would be great).

@gffletch gffletch merged commit 06c39d4 into main Nov 21, 2025
2 checks passed
@gffletch gffletch deleted the PieterKas-patch-1 branch November 21, 2025 16:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants