Sorry about an inadvertent typo below :- > Brain's point was that if we documenting an oversight then lets be
Should be :- Brian's point was that, if we are documenting ..... -Anantha > -----Original Message----- > From: Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:29 PM > To: Wesley Eddy > Cc: SCHARF, Michael; Brian E Carpenter; draft-ietf-tcpm- > [email protected]; General Area Review Team; David Harrington > Subject: RE: Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpm-persist-04.txt > > 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
