On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 05:43:58PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote: > On 02/07/2018 04:32 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:> Line 2519, I think should [line 2519] > --> SHOULD, since elsewhere we use SHOULD > > for sending the error token to the peer. > > No opinion. You could make a case for "that should be sent" being > either descriptive on the token or prescriptive on the application.
Re-reading, I agree with you and retract the suggestion. > > Line 2561, I could go either way on "may" vs. "MAY" -- the argument > > for the former would be that it's just stating an attribute of the > > operation, and this text is describing something specified elsewhere > > and not introducing any restrictions or giving guidance on it. > > Similarly for acceptSecContext on line 2597. > > I think that's a MAY. It seems prescriptive on the method implementation. Okay. > > Line 2668, SHOULD not --> SHOULD NOT > > Agree. > > > Line 2858, MAY --> may, since this is just describing what some > > implementations could be doing and not exactly granting permission > > for it. > > Sure, and it's an example. > > > I guess for consistency I should say the same thing about line 3049. > > I guess "may" here, but no strong opinion. > > > Line 3716, MUST not --> MUST NOT > > Agree. Thanks for double-checking my work. -Ben _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
