Not sure it was so strong. I'd interpret the list consensus as being to remove all normative statements where possible with some people (but maybe not a consensus) saying that that should get rid of them all.
If there's something that the editors feel should be normative in the deployment guide then I guess we'll need to deal with that based on the next rev, but that should be easier if we get rid of unnecessary 2119 language. S. Dave Crocker wrote: > Just to make sure I understand: > > The decision is to remove all hints of being normative? (Per the > recent exchange on the IETF mailing list, this won't hinge on case.) > > > d/ > > Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Issue description: https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1561 >> >> Thread: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q1/009790.html >> >> From the thread people seem to support the thrust of the comment, i.e. >> to reduce/eliminate 2119 language where possible and definitely >> avoid it (regardless of case) where its not needed. >> >> Suggest we leave this open for now to let the editors concentrate >> on the overview and process the deployment draft issue subsequently. >> >> S. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to >> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html >> > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
