|
|
Whether allowed or not, I think the main body of the spec, outside
the various "Considerations", should be sufficient to build an
interoperable implementations. Thus, a 2119 term isn't bad if it
merely restates what has been said before, but it shouldn't be the
only or first time the concept or protocol feature is explained.
On Feb 14, 2007, at 11:36 AM, James M. Polk wrote:
At 03:30 PM 2/14/2007 +0200, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi James,
I am not aware of any restrictions regarding the usage of RFC 2119
language in the security section.
This email was a reaction as much as anything to guidance from ADs
in the past telling me to remove such language before they moved a
particular doc to move forward (which has happened more than once
in the last few years)
Btw, your draft does this as well :-)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-location-
conveyance-07.txt
yep, I'm embarrassed to admit the second paragraph does have this.
Ciao
Hannes
James M. Polk wrote:
Authors
A quick thought/observation:
There is normative text in the Security Considerations section,
and I don't believe this is appropriate or even allowed. I think
it should be moved regardless into the main text body.
James
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
|
|