Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> Was wondering: If we are writing explicit requirements into the BRSKI
> considerations documents, should they not rather be BCP instead of
> informational ? I must admit i am completely confused about when to
> choose BCP versus informational when you do use RFC2119 language.
If we are writing BCP14 language, then they are probably updates to RFC8995.
I think/hope that most of the content will be say things like:
If you want the XYZ property to always be true when doing ABC, then
the PQRST option needs to be supported.
With BCP we can use or not use BCP14 language, and I suggest we decide that
part later.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
