On Jan 28, 2008, at 4:35 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your feedback. There are two open issues left in this
email: open item concerning privacy implications and the
clarification around requirements/ numbering. Let me address the
second one here.
Your initial comment was:
This document states a number of requirements that might be
referenced by future documents. If there is any intent that other
document be evaluated for compliance with the requirements herein,
it would be useful to break such requirements out and number or
otherwise label them so they can be easily referenced in other
documents.
This document states a number of requirements that might be
referenced by future documents.
Could you please give us an example.
Pretty much every bullet item in section 4 and its subsections.
I understand what you mean now.
Our goal with the section 4 is the explanation of the requirements
on which the architecture is based. In other words, a kind of
introduction of what was important in terms of sampling/filtering/
hashing. So we don't foresee that those requirements might be
referenced by another document or protocol. As a consequence, we're
not sure that numbering the requirements would help.
Okay, that's fine.
Thanks!
Ben.
Regards, Benoit.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
