On Aug 10, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > 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. > Okay, that makes sense. It might not hurt (but would be okay not to) to add a sentence explaining that this doc suggests a stronger requirement than in the source RFCs in order to be sure of safety. Thanks! Ben. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf