Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> -7, Grasp Message and Options table: Why "Standards Action"? Would you
>> expect some harm to be done if this were only Spec Required?
> Personal opinion: I see potential for harm. I could imagine that if
> GRASP is a success, then with experience we might be more relaxed about
> it, but for now I tend to be conservative about it. Of course, the WG
> may disagree...
Is it easier to raise the bar or lower it? I think lowering is easier.
I could live with "Spec Required" or even FCFS for M_* values >65536, btw.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
