-- Section 3.5, last paragraph:
This paragraph seems to make a normative statement about
implementations that _don't_ implement this extension. Is that the
intent?
Yes, it was intentional.
Let me push on that a minute--how can this draft make normative
statements about implementations that don't support this
draft? To put
a sharper point on it, you can't assume that someone who is not
implementing this draft will even read this draft.
If you are in fact describing existing behavior rather than
specifying
a new normative requirement, then it would probably be better
to avoid
normative language, or state is in the form of "according to
RFC XXXX,
implementations MAY..."
(On the other hand, since this is a MAY, it's probably less of an
issue than if it were a stronger normative statement.)
Upon rereading this particular text I realize that its redundant and can
be safely pruned. This is because implementations that don't support
this draft are anyways going to accept the PDUs as per the standards. I
was only trying to restate the obvious.
Will remove this in the revised ID.
-- Section 8
The author list here does not match the first page. Should some of
these move to a "Contributors" section?
Will fix this.
See other emails on this one.
I will move all the authors in the list at the top of the document as
suggested by Chris in the revised ID.
Cheers,
Manav
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf