> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:10 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Job Snijders wrote: >> Do you have any more comments or concerns queued up? > > I don't think the draft is well specified in terms of its intended > semantics. This is a problem with a standards track document, > particularly one with big scary warnings in the security considerations > section. It needs to be tightened up substantially before publication > could be considered. Looking at section 5 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5635.txt I think provides some guidance of helpful text to improve this section. While some hardware may not support certain capabilities, limiting a specification to an exact generation of operator hardware would be shortsighted. I suspect one could re-use much of the rfc5635 text without much if any additional commentary. - Jared