Searching for all uses of '28' (still the correct table number) and '17.6.3.5' I find exactly zero references to Table 28. The cross-references to 17.6.3.5 typically contain just the clause-number in brackets, but we could be more consistent in our phrasing when we make the cross-reference.

Existing phrasing includes:
Alloc shall be an Allocator (17.6.3.5) [most common, but not dominant]
Alloc shall meet the requirements for an Allocator (17.6.3.5).
Allocator shall meet the Allocator requirements (17.6.3.5)
a type that satisfies the Allocator requirements (17.6.3.5)
... conforms to the Allocator requirements (17.6.3.5)
a type that conforms to the requirements for Allocator (Table 17.6.3.5) [text of this issue]

Allocator support for std::function has been removed, so this is now moot.

(If we want to discuss consistency of the "shall meet X" wording, we should have a new issue that also looks for similar phrases for CopyConstructible etc. This is probably a large task.)