Sending to the list, seems like one reply got off-list: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Rejhon <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 6 and beyond] To: [email protected]
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > The point I was making wasn't concerned so much where it was (although > it seems I was torn about this a year ago, as well :)), but that it > needs to be normative - opinions differ on whether that means things > need to be in different bits of the XEP. I think just using 2119 > language is probably fine. There is no normative language beyond Section 5 of XEP-0301 -- This is intentional to make XEP-0301 protocol simpler by keeping normatives out of "Implementation Notes" So the simple change of adding RFC2119, creates this cascading requirement. So I see possible outcomes: 1. Leave as-is 2. Or add normative where it is (creating the only normative in "Implementation Notes". Ugh.) 3. Or the XEP-0085 approach. Create a new section located somewhere above "Implementation Notes"; similiar to 5.1 and 5.5 of XEP-0085
