Update some wording
@@ -8,9 +8,9 @@ The MSC aims to simply clarify that homeservers can take on the responisibility
Currently when a client requests a password reset, they make a call to either [/_matrix/client/r0/account/password/email/requestToken](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/r0.4.0.html#post-matrix-client-r0-account-password-email-requesttoken) or [/_matrix/client/r0/account/password/msisdn/requestToken](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/r0.4.0.html#post-matrix-client-r0-account-password-msisdn-requesttoken). This request is supplied all the necessary details as well as a `id_server` field containing the address of a trusted identity server which the user has used in the past to bind their 3PID. Understand that it is recommended for the homeserver to only grant the request if the given identity server is in a trusted list.
-The `id_server` field is currently required as the homeserver must know where to proxy the request to. This MSC proposes not to change the requirements of this field, but instead to clarify that the homeserver is allowed to not proxy the request, but carry it out itself. This would mean the homeserver can both send password reset tokens (via email or sms), as well as accept requests to [/_matrix/identity/api/v1/validate/email/submitToken](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/identity_service/r0.1.0.html#post-matrix-identity-api-v1-validate-email-submittoken) to verify that token.
+The `id_server` field is currently required as the homeserver must know where to proxy the request to. This MSC proposes not to change the requirements of this field. Instead, it asks to clarify that the homeserver is allowed to not proxy the request, but carry it out itself. This would mean the homeserver can both send password reset tokens (via email or sms), as well as accept requests to [/_matrix/identity/api/v1/validate/email/submitToken](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/identity_service/r0.1.0.html#post-matrix-identity-api-v1-validate-email-submittoken) to verify that token.
-Thus, this proposal really only requests that it be clear that a homeserver does not need to proxy requests to `/requestToken`, and instead can ignore the `id_server` field and carry out the request itself.
+Thus, this proposal really only requests that it be clear that a homeserver does not need to proxy requests to `/requestToken`, and instead can ignore the `id_server` field and perform emailing/sms message sending by itself.
## Tradeoffs
