Dear Brian Thanks for your feedback!
> >> Contains requirements discussion: Usually this happens in separate, > information documents. > > I've never understood the advantage of separating the requirements discussion, > which is sometimes essential to correctly understand a protocol design. IMHO > this requirements section is quite short and makes the following architectural > discussion much easier to understand. Yes, I see the benefits of understanding the design. In other cases it is often central requirements documents that lead to multiple RFCs. Here, it is about the design for this particular extension. Hence, I do not see an issue with this and only wanted to hear how the WG wants to handle this. I think we have to tidy the section up a bit, however, as some normative statements are made already there and keeping it concise is always good for the reader. Best, Matthias _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
