> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Shmuel Metz > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] RFC 2119 language > > I was thinking of draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt, but I was suggesting that > we be cautious about specifying MUST in general. In fact, I wonder > whether we should include the justification as part of any draft using > MUST, or at least in the discussion.
It's fair to suggest this, but we're late enough in WGLC that I think we need to have specific examples called out for consideration, with alternate text suggested. Also, this is an applicability statement, not a protocol document. That changes the context a bit in terms of interoperability requirements; the protocol document establishes those, and this is more of a "best practices" specification. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
