> >> -- Section 3.5, last paragraph: > >> > >> This paragraph seems to make a normative statement about > >> implementations that _don't_ implement this extension. Is that the > >> intent? > > > > Yes, it was intentional. > > > > Let me push on that a minute--how can this draft make normative > statements about implementations that don't support this > draft? To put > a sharper point on it, you can't assume that someone who is not > implementing this draft will even read this draft. > > If you are in fact describing existing behavior rather than > specifying > a new normative requirement, then it would probably be better > to avoid > normative language, or state is in the form of "according to > RFC XXXX, > implementations MAY..." > > (On the other hand, since this is a MAY, it's probably less of an > issue than if it were a stronger normative statement.) Upon rereading this particular text I realize that its redundant and can be safely pruned. This is because implementations that don't support this draft are anyways going to accept the PDUs as per the standards. I was only trying to restate the obvious. Will remove this in the revised ID. > >> -- Section 8 > >> > >> The author list here does not match the first page. Should some of > >> these move to a "Contributors" section? > > > > Will fix this. > > > > See other emails on this one. I will move all the authors in the list at the top of the document as suggested by Chris in the revised ID. Cheers, Manav _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf