Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-19: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 4 Jan 2017, at 17:21, Sean Turner wrote:

>> On Jan 4, 2017, at 18:19, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 4 Jan 2017, at 16:37, Sean Turner wrote:
>>
>>> -2: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol explicitly excludes 
>>> non-capitalized
>>>> versions of 2119 words. This draft does not. It seems different 
>>>> 2119
>>>> approaches among the various bgpsec draft could be confusing to the
>>>> reader.
>>>
>>>
>>> Where’s that in draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol?
>>>
>>> Regardless, I’m not sure that restoration will work in this draft 
>>> because there are repeated MUST requirements from other RFC and my 
>>> AD told me to not capitalize them :)
>>
>> Oops, sorry, I meant to say draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops.
>>
>> Maybe I misunderstand what you mean; are the non-capitalized 
>> requirements from other drafts intended as normative for _this_ 
>> draft? If not, then the treatment of non-capitalized 2119 words as 
>> normal English seems to help.
>>
>
> It’s more like: "As defined in RFC mubleqsuat, client must do 
> this.”  The thinking goes (and I agree) that we should repeat 
> requirements if we’re just quoting them.

Without getting into specific reasoning either way: My comment was not 
meant to be binding, just something to consider.

Ben.
t