> On May 28, 2017, at 11:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 23/05/2017 13:25, Ben Campbell wrote: > ... >> - Is section 2 [Requirements] expected to be useful to implementers once >> this is> published as an RFC? Unless there's a reason otherwise, I would >> suggest >> moving this to an appendix, or even removing it entirely. As it is, you >> have to wade through an unusual amount of front material before you get >> to the meat of the protocol. > > I'm open to that, and you are not the only reader with that comment. > But we'd need WG consent…
Understood. I’m not going to stand in the way if the WG wants to keep things as is. But I do think that moving/removing the section would make the document more friendly to it’s post-publication target audience. Thanks! Ben. _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
