jiebi/ids-paragraph-commentary-corpus huggingface dataset:
Draft: draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers

Commentary: uses http - core semantics fixes Sections refs cc : 
 I 'll wait for the new i - d - template image , but will do . 
 Please use either [ RFCxxxx ] , Section yyy or Section yyy of [ RFCxxxx ] 
 Addressed by now . 
 If you start using the new kramdown - rcf2629 section ref syntax , you may want to do that consistently ...
Paragraph (version A):
The behavior of "RateLimit-Reset" is compatible with the "delta-
seconds" notation of "Retry-After".
Paragraph (version B):
The behavior of "RateLimit-Reset" is compatible with the "delay-
seconds" notation of "Retry-After".
Paragraph (version A):
This specification does not cover the throttling scope, that may
be the given resource-target, its parent path or the whole Origin
RFC6454 section 7.
Paragraph (version B):
This specification does not cover the throttling scope, that may
be the given resource-target, its parent path or the whole Origin
(see Section 7 of RFC6454).
Paragraph (version A):
This document uses the Augmented BNF defined in RFC5234 and updated
by RFC7405 along with the "#rule" extension defined in Section 7 of
MESSAGING.
Paragraph (version A):
The "delta-seconds" rule is defined in CACHING section 1.2.1.
Paragraph (version B):
This document uses the Augmented BNF defined in RFC5234 and updated
by RFC7405 along with the "#rule" extension defined in Section 5.6.1
of SEMANTICS.
Paragraph (version B):
The term Origin is to be interpreted as described in Section 7 of
RFC6454.
Paragraph (version B):
The "delay-seconds" rule is defined in Section 10.2.4 of SEMANTICS.
Paragraph (version A):
This section documents the considerations advised in Section 15.3.3
of SEMANTICS.
Paragraph (version B):
This section documents the considerations advised in Section 16.3.3
of SEMANTICS.
Draft: draft-ietf-httpapi-ratelimit-headers

Commentary: Improves terminology 
 In other parts of the document we still use client as we are not sure whether to refer explicitly to a User Agent or not . Ideas welcome ... 
 See RFC 7230 terminology definitions ( , not changing in the new specs , FWIW ) .
Paragraph (version A):
Client applications interfacing with different servers may thus need
to process different headers, or the very same application interface
that sits behind different reverse proxies may reply with different
throttling headers.
Paragraph (version B):
User Agents interfacing with different servers may thus need to
process different headers, or the very same application interface
that sits behind different reverse proxies may reply with different
throttling headers.