Hi Ben, Thanks for reading. > Nits/editorial comments: > > -- section 1, paragraph 4: "...with relation to the programming..." > > ... in relation to... Yeah. RFC Editor note if Stewart is watching (although I'm guessing the RFC Editor might just fix this anyway). > -- 3.1, last paragraph: > > Note that the references say SHOULD rather than MUST. Using "must not" here, > even non-normatively, seems a bit overstated. Disagree. The caveat is that we are defining something different. We are looking at the case where we want to know that it is safe to start sending data. We are using the existence of some "SHOULD" statements in related RFCs that describe related behavior, to derive a "must" that covers when it is known to be safe. Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf