On 7 Jan 2016, at 6:56, sara wrote:

=== Editorial===
-1: "... TCP is henceforth a REQUIRED ..."
Since the normative language is strengthened in section 5, the REQUIRED seems redundant here. I'd suggest stating this without the 2119 keyword.


This mimics exactly what was done in the original RFC5966 to state the main point of the document early on. I would argue for leaving the language as explicit (even if redundant) rather than make it vaguer…

It is not critical either way, but IIRC section 5 added more (and stronger) normative language than was in 5966, right? So the REQUIRED in section 5 is less needed now.

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to