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
