Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-sipcore-refer-explicit-subscription-02

[Vincent Roca <[e-mail]>]

Hello Ben,

I do understand that such a practice across different documents is dangerous.
But this is not what I’ve been doing so far within a single document. I’ll think about
it in the future.
Thanks,

  Vincent


> Le 23 juin 2015 à 16:33, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> On 23 Jun 2015, at 3:02, Vincent Roca wrote:
> 
>> Ben made a similar comment. The first 2119 requirement you point to needs to move up into the protocol definition part of the document.
>>>> The second is restating text that’s in RFC3261, and we don't need to repeat the 2119 here - I'll clarify the language to say "use the mechanisms the base specification provides".
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> VR: IMHO repeating normative vocabulary is not an issue as long as it is used homogeneously in the whole document,
>> whereas the opposite would be an issue.
> 
> While this is small enough to not matter either way, in general I prefer not to have multiple occurrences of the same normative statement, unless one clearly refers to the other. Even if they are in sync, it can cause confusion for people trying to reference authoritative text, and an opportunity for error in future updates.