Re: forward the information model

On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 23:25 +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi Leif,
> 
> (Adding krb-wg list since we're not quite done merging yet.)
> 
> On 12/05/2012 08:06 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:
> > 
> > At ATL I had a conversation with Pete about our use of RFC2119 language
> > in the information model draft.
> > 
> > We agreed that one way forward is for us to drop the _reference_ to RFC2119
> > and replace the standard 2119 boilerplate with language of our own that
> > explain the terms MUST, SHOULD, etc.
> > 
> > We both agree that dropping the use of all-caps words of this type is
> > probably
> > not a viable option.
> > 
> > I'd like the WGs comment on the plan before proposing language text.
> 
> I think you ought take silence as "yes" here since this has been
> a known trickiness for this draft and the plan seems like it
> ought make no difference to the WG (the text you add might, but
> the plan ought not). So I'd say firing ahead and sending your
> proposed wording change to the list for review ought be fine here.


I think going ahead and sending proposed wording is fine.  However,
given the amount of time and effort we've spent on trying to get this
aspect of the document right, I also think it's something the WG ought
to sign off on.  My preference would be to see a positive response from
someone who has read the proposed new text.

I don't think you can draw any meaning from lack of response to a
message the WG hasn't seen.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg