Not sure it was so strong. I'd interpret the list consensus as
being to remove all normative statements where possible with
some people (but maybe not a consensus) saying that that should
get rid of them all.
If there's something that the editors feel should be normative
in the deployment guide then I guess we'll need to deal with
that based on the next rev, but that should be easier if we
get rid of unnecessary 2119 language.
S.
Dave Crocker wrote:
Just to make sure I understand:
The decision is to remove all hints of being normative? (Per the
recent exchange on the IETF mailing list, this won't hinge on case.)
d/
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Issue description: https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1561
Thread: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q1/009790.html
From the thread people seem to support the thrust of the comment, i.e.
to reduce/eliminate 2119 language where possible and definitely
avoid it (regardless of case) where its not needed.
Suggest we leave this open for now to let the editors concentrate
on the overview and process the deployment draft issue subsequently.
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html