Hi Gunter, Both drafts have been updated. Please let us know if you see any other issues.
Thanks, Yingzhen On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 7:24 AM Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Authors, > > > > Before requesting a IETF last call, I realized that the requirements > section text seems to have inherit an old template. > > > > 74 1.1. Requirements Language > > 75 > > 76 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", > "SHALL NOT", > > 77 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > "OPTIONAL" in this > > 78 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. > > > > Can this be updated to reflect the new one as follows: > > > > 1.1. Requirements Language > > > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > > "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP > > 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all > > capitals, as shown here. > > > > Many thanks, > > G/ >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
