Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay, I can add a clarification to the errata to indicate that RFC 2119 > language is not required for the text to still be normative, and if > this text is updated, the other sections should be updated in a > consistent fashion.
If you like.
I don't have a strong opinion. Probably we should have used BCP14 language
there.
> An alternative resolution here is for me to reject the errata,
> indicating that the text is still a normative requirement even though
> it doesn’t use RFC 2119 language. Specifically, I don’t think that the
> existing text is wrong, but consistently using RFC 2119 keywords may
> add clarity.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
