I have done a comparison of 1.5 to 1.6 and marked cases where changes happened and they were not sufficiently marked as changes. I think some of the changes were probably accidental, so should be undone rather than marked.
I am posting an FDF (and the corresponding PDF, although the PDF is actually just the "Final" 1.6 spec).
I am also going to open another JIRA issue having to do with "issues" found during the comparison. I think the distinction between finding an "issue" and finding a bad 1.5->1.6 marking is sometimes a fine one, so forgive me if the two different JIRA issues are not cleanly distinguished.
I have not fully completed my comparison of 1.5 and 1.6 (I am probably about 70% done), but decided it was taking too long so I should post what I have so far.
(Go through the FDF file Carney1.5To1.6_MissingChangeMarking_Part1_JDF Specification 1.6-Final.RP.DMC.fdf and make the changes listed in it.
Many of the comments in the FDF are to be handled through separate issues; in these cases, the issue is listed in the comment.
For comments in the FDF without a separate issue, it is believed that none of those comments require new entries to be made to the 1.6 Errata, EXCEPT THAT many of them do require 1.6 change marking, and thus will require changes to be made to the Appendix N entry in the 1.6 Errata.
NOTE: There are 3 FDFs attached to this issue, but make sure to use the one mentioned above, which is the final one with Dennis Carney's original comments, Rainer Prosi's responses, and then Dennis Carney's final comments, for example, listing issue numbers he created after discussions with Rainer)