On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:37 PM, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
(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.
I don't object to removing it--but if you think that saying it
provides any help for implementers of this extension, you could also
fix this by merely stating it in non-normative language.
In either case, the discussion has addressed all of my comments.
Thanks!
Ben.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf