> On Jan 4, 2017, at 18:19, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4 Jan 2017, at 16:37, Sean Turner wrote: > >> -2: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol explicitly excludes non-capitalized >>> versions of 2119 words. This draft does not. It seems different 2119 >>> approaches among the various bgpsec draft could be confusing to the >>> reader. >> >> >> Where’s that in draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol? >> >> Regardless, I’m not sure that restoration will work in this draft because >> there are repeated MUST requirements from other RFC and my AD told me to not >> capitalize them :) > > Oops, sorry, I meant to say draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops. > > Maybe I misunderstand what you mean; are the non-capitalized requirements > from other drafts intended as normative for _this_ draft? If not, then the > treatment of non-capitalized 2119 words as normal English seems to help. >
It’s more like: "As defined in RFC mubleqsuat, client must do this.” The thinking goes (and I agree) that we should repeat requirements if we’re just quoting them. spt _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
