Hello Martin,
Thanks, I'll update with RFC 2119 cited at appropriate places
Sabine
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin(_dot_)thomson(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 26 April 2017 08:39
To: Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Nozay) <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-
bell-labs.com>
Cc: art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; alto(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; draft-ietf-alto-multi-
cost(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-08
On 26 April 2017 at 03:26, Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Nozay)
<sabine(_dot_)randriamasy(_at_)nokia-bell-labs(_dot_)com> wrote:
This document doesn't cite RFC 2119, but it uses the keywords.
[SR ] RFC 2119 is cited on page 1, section " Requirements Language" and
section "9.1. Normative References". Should it be referenced elsewhere?
The convention is to put those in the body, I missed it in the boilerplate.
I skimmed the other changes, and they look fine.