All three of those sound like improvements. WHichever one you and the working group pick would clearly help.
Thank you, Joel On 7/17/2019 5:13 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Michael. I saw the proposed change in section 9. I wonder > if that is hiding the MUST, since the mechanisms are in section 7... > Having said that, I can live with it as you have proposed. I take your point. Options I see are: 1) swap the sections so section 9 (applicability) comes before 7 (reduced security) 2) mention the ACP applicability in section 7. 3) move the 7.2 section to section 9. The intention with section 7 is to provide a palette of things, and let their use be dictated by how the protocol is applied.
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
