On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:01:11PM +0100, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > Reinaldo, > > On 10 May 2011, at 19:04, Reinaldo Penno wrote: > > > The document in my opinion is close to complete. When I look at the > > protocol, we are meeting most of the reqs. > > > > But personally I think these 3 Requirements should be modified, or maybe > > removed. But as editor I would like to hear the WG opinions. > > I would agree that as written the requirements you highlight are not very > clear and could do with being modified. > > It is not clear to me what is meant by "MUST be able to" i.e does this mean > the server MUST do it or it MUST be capable of doing it but is allowed to > choose not to.
the intent of "server MUST be able to..." is: the protocol spec MUST specify mechanisms, which can be used by the server to ..., or specify how to use mechanisms of lower protocol layers. I propose to change the wording of these reqs to be similar to the new wording about encryption. Thanks S. _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
