David Nicol wrote:
it isn't clear whose "intent" is referred to -
though I guess we mean the intent of the provider not the user
which would be solved by clearly sectioning into BCP for providing and
BCP for use, no guessing would be req'd after that
I'd prefer not to do any major surgery on the document at this point.
It's been _way_ too long already (though that's probably not a very good
reason ;-).
It would cause some significant flow/replication/redundancy uglies. But
I do see the point about interspersing them.
I'm considering a brief summarization section of the "SHOULD/MUST/MAY"
split between user and provider. Thoughts?
BTW: thanks for all the comments. I'm filing them away for a run at
updates. I'll be adopting almost all of them (if someone can show me
how in XML to not have the RFC number replicate in references ;-) It's
nice to see that I seem to have gotten it to the point where there isn't
any substantive changes apparently needed.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg