ecrit@ietf.org
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Ecrit] LoST-04 and Security Considerations Section

Subject: Re: [Ecrit] LoST-04 and Security Considerations Section
From: Henning Schulzrinne
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:41:01 -0500
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>