On 8/22/11 6:52 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
...a substantial change to implementation requirements - which this absolutely is - is *highly* inappropriate when moving to full standard.
Yup. That's why I pushed back against Russ on this, and why he agreed with me that removal is a reasonable alternative.
I think pointing out the possibility of client signatures is important and the text should be retained, but without the compliance language. I think deleting it weakens the document and therefore I object to its total removal. That said, I can live with it going if not removing it will prevent the move to full standard.
So, I hadn't considered the possibility of simply weakening the current language so it's strictly explanatory and had no 2119 language. I have to agree with Russ that the current text is hand-wavy and with Ned that more explanations are context-specific, but I'm less sanguine than Ned that simply removing the 2119 language from what's currently there would make the text terribly useful without additional context-specific explanations. However, if there is a general feeling that including such text is a better choice than removing this entirely, I'd say come up with some text and bring Russ into the conversation. Speaking for myself, I think it's just as well to remove it.
pr -- Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
