Hi Wes, > > This document contains no protocol and alters no protocol.
But it documents (clarifies) a protocol action namely persist condition, FWIW. > > I don't agree with attempting any comparison with RFC 6093. That RFC > changed the specification of the urgent pointer, whereas this > draft does not change the TCP specification one iota. Fair enough. > > It's hard to see how Standards Track is appropriate for this draft. Well, if a document updates a standards track document, then I don't see any issues making the updating document a standards track. > > I agree with Michael that "MUST" versus "must" should make little > difference to a reader; they'll get the point. Brain's point was that if we documenting an oversight then lets be honest about it. In the same spirits, why do we want even change the "MUST" to must.. Just to make the document informational? Beats me.. -Anantha _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
