Dave Crocker wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
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.
I'm going to be picky about this guidance, only because I know it will
bite us in the ass later, if there is any issue, so I'd rather get this
settled before we do serious revising:
I don't think you're being picky.
The -Overview is scheduled to be Informational. It can't have
normative text and be a working group document at Informational, IMO.
In any event, having it contain stray normative text -- absent a very
clear mandate for very specific areas to specify -- invites confusion
rather than clarity.
I agree. But this issue relates to the deployment guide, not the
overview. If we also have a similar consensus about the deployment
guide, then I think that makes sense but I don't remember us
closing out on that yet (we did specifically for the overview).
And... my current reading of the draft under revision is that it has
no normative text. My personal expectation is that it will stay that
way...
Again, that's good IMO.
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html