diff --git a/draft-ietf-lager-specification.xml b/draft-ietf-lager-specification.xml
index d1cf73d..7209bbf 100644
--- a/draft-ietf-lager-specification.xml
+++ b/draft-ietf-lager-specification.xml
@@ -330,12 +330,22 @@
There may be multiple "scope" tags used, for example to reflect a list of domains
- to which the LGR is applied. Types of scope other than "domain" are application-defined.
- Such application-defined type values must be in a namespace "apptype", which, if used,
- must have been previously defined according to the usual XML document rules.
- An explanation of the application-defined type in the
+ to which the LGR is applied.
+
+ No other values of the "type" attribute are defined by
+ this specification, however this specification can be used for
+ applications other than domain names. Implementers of LGRs for applications other
+ than domain names SHOULD define the scope extension grammar in an IETF Specification,
+ or use XML Namespaces to distinguish their scoping mechanism distinctly from the
+ base LGR namespace. An explanation of any custom usage of the scope in the
"description" element is RECOMMENDED.
+
+
+ ... content per alternate namespace ...
+ ]]>
+
+
@@ -1875,7 +1885,7 @@
Actions are applied in the order of their appearance in the file. This defines
their relative precedence. The first action triggered by a label defines the
- disposition for that label. To define a the order of precedence, list the
+ disposition for that label. To define the order of precedence, list the
actions in the desired order. The conventional order of precedence for the
actions defined in is "invalid",
"blocked", "allocatable", "activated" then "valid". This default precedence is used for the
@@ -3035,7 +3045,8 @@ U+6F27;U+4E7E;U+6F27;U+4E81,U+5E72,U+5E79,U+69A6]]>
Incorporated feedback from LAGER WG Last Call. Fixed examples in 4.4.1 and 5.2.1.
Reviewed usage of RFC 2119 language, and other editorial suggestions. Removed
- "und-Jpan" example as "ja" would suffice in normal cases.
+ "und-Jpan" example as "ja" would suffice in normal cases. Document approach to
+ expanding "scope" element.