Simon Josefsson wrote: > I think the text proposed is mostly fine. I would say "normalization > and/or comparison" instead of just "normalization" to allow for > mechanisms that just specify comparison-based rules rather than > normalization-based rules. So:
The text looks OK to me. My only concern is that standardizing i18n in *each* possible EAP document is duplicating work. If we end up with only one tunnel method that is standardized, then there's less of a problem. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
