I agree with Tero's reasoning, even though I raised this issue in the
past (and I still think the text is kind of weird).
Let's keep changes in this "bis" to the minimum possible.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 2013-11-12 17:57, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Valery Smyslov writes:
1. Section 1.6 Requirements Terminology is placed far from the begining
of the document and all the requirements words, along with terms
from RFC4301 etc. are used before they are formally introduced.
I don't think it is appropriate for standards track document.
I suggest to move this section before Introduction.
We had this discussion twice when we were making RFC5996 (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg03051.html and
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg04526.html ).
The fist of this emails (Yaron's notes) caused ticket #51 to be
opened:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ipsecme/trac/ticket/51
And the resolution for that ticket #51 was closed as "wontfix" and
with comments:
There is no other good place to do this without messing up the section
numbering.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
