> <draft-ietf-grow-rfc1519bis-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard
That's an interesting document - at least for me, because I
didn't know most of the nine obsoleted RfCs.
Does it intentionally avoid 2119 keywords ? There's a "MUST"
in 5.1, a "should NOT" in 5, and somewhere I saw another "must"
which could be a 2119 MUST.
There might be a few typos in the text above the ASCII art in
6.1, s/RA/PA/ and s/RB/PB/ (?)
For the difference between C4 and C5 a pointer could help: The
text and RfC 1519 apparently say that C5 should also explicitly
show up on the left side (PA) like C4, not only on the right
side (PB). There's no erratum for 1519, probably I just miss
some clue about "primary" vs. "secondary", or "aggregation".
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf