Subject: Re: [Dime] M-bit - draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-12.txt

From: Jan Engelhardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 05:23:10 +0100 (CET)

>I should have been more precise: "... MUST parse and understand the
>semantic of the AVP including its content". 

I would not call it Mandatory AVP then, because mandatory is close to 
required, if you look that up in a thesaurus, but required-to-be-present 
is different from required-to-be-understood.
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime