On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10/8/2018 10:13 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 08:57:33AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: >> >>> I think it's clear that the reviewers, notably myself as shepherd, missed >>> that this is a lowercase "must" and should have asked for clarification >>> during the review process. >>> >>> Having an errata saying this "must" really is a "MUST" is quite >>> reasonable >>> from my perspective. >>> >> As explained, technically speaking, the "must" is pointless in certain >> situations. Making it a MUST does not make things any better. >> > Okay - then all that needs to be done is clarify the errata and decide if > you want to author a new draft on the behavior/text you'd like to change. > >
After reading the RFC details, it seems that the example is intentional based on the text about NP-containers. I think an errata could be used because the sentence about a top-level origin must be defined could be interpreted to define "top-level" as the topmost level for which the origin property is applicable. It appears the intent was to exclude NP-containers from this requirement. Thanks, > Lou > Andy > > >> /js >> >> >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
