On 4 Jan 2017, at 17:21, Sean Turner wrote:
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.
Without getting into specific reasoning either way: My comment was not
meant to be binding, just something to consider.
Ben.
t
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
