[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Capabilities drafts do not need 2119 language (MUST...) and disclaimers
- To: opsec@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: Capabilities drafts do not need 2119 language (MUST...) and disclaimers
- From: "George Jones" <eludom@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:59:01 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=J0k5l7SCdqS4jHpxp5b4Wn9K/S4d0gniORnFpDs+NmIfqvcOV02pmG28MNx2pMlfSXxSPzerXQe2xEGkdKrTSPEsb3KulBsHjq2vwrPzVlYXDxdUK099NzCrmtzryMs/irwAQoSO+VWFDUXTdQ0OR64B2IhPypwjnCUe5X1Zepo=
- Reply-to: gmj@pobox.com
In discussion with Ross, it occured to me that capabilities drafts
do not need the 2119 languages and disclaimers (MUST, SHOULD, MAY...)
because we are not defining requirements.
FYI,
---George