Subject: [kitten] forward the information model

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:06:03 +0100

At ATL I had a conversation with Pete about our use of RFC2119 language
in the information model draft.

We agreed that one way forward is for us to drop the _reference_ to RFC2119
and replace the standard 2119 boilerplate with language of our own that
explain the terms MUST, SHOULD, etc.

We both agree that dropping the use of all-caps words of this type is
probably
not a viable option.

I'd like the WGs comment on the plan before proposing language text.

        Best R
        Leif

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:25:56 +0000

Hi Leif,

(Adding krb-wg list since we're not quite done merging yet.)

> I'd like the WGs comment on the plan before proposing language text.

I think you ought take silence as "yes" here since this has been
a known trickiness for this draft and the plan seems like it
ought make no difference to the WG (the text you add might, but
the plan ought not). So I'd say firing ahead and sending your
proposed wording change to the list for review ought be fine here.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:03:32 -0500

> proposed wording change to the list for review ought be fine here.

I think going ahead and sending proposed wording is fine.  However,
given the amount of time and effort we've spent on trying to get this
aspect of the document right, I also think it's something the WG ought
to sign off on.  My preference would be to see a positive response from
someone who has read the proposed new text.

I don't think you can draw any meaning from lack of response to a
message the WG hasn't seen.

-- Jeff