Re: [IPsec] RFC5996bis editorial change in section 1.6 Requirements Terminology (Was Editorial changes to RFC5996)

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Tero's reasoning, even though I raised this issue in the 
past (and I still think the text is kind of weird).

Let's keep changes in this "bis" to the minimum possible.

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 2013-11-12 17:57, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Valery Smyslov writes:
>> 1. Section 1.6 Requirements Terminology is placed far from the begining
>>      of the document and all the requirements words, along with terms
>>      from RFC4301 etc. are used before they are formally introduced.
>>      I don't think it is appropriate for standards track document.
>>      I suggest to move this section before Introduction.
>
> We had this discussion twice when we were making RFC5996 (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg03051.html and
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg04526.html ).
>
> The fist of this emails (Yaron's notes) caused ticket #51 to be
> opened:
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ipsecme/trac/ticket/51
>
> And the resolution for that ticket #51 was closed as "wontfix" and
> with comments:
>
>> There is no other good place to do this without messing up the section
>> numbering.
>>