On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:10 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick(_at_)foobar(_dot_)org> wrote:
Job Snijders wrote:
Do you have any more comments or concerns queued up?
I don't think the draft is well specified in terms of its intended
semantics. This is a problem with a standards track document,
particularly one with big scary warnings in the security considerations
section. It needs to be tightened up substantially before publication
could be considered.
Looking at section 5 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5635.txt
I think provides some guidance of helpful text to improve this section. While
some hardware may not support certain capabilities, limiting a specification
to an exact generation of operator hardware would be shortsighted.
I suspect one could re-use much of the rfc5635 text without much if any
additional commentary.
- Jared