[ietf-dkim] Issue 1561: Development & Deployment guide improperly uses normative language

[Stephen Farrell]

Not sure it was so strong. I'd interpret the list consensus as
being to remove all normative statements where possible with
some people (but maybe not a consensus) saying that that should
get rid of them all.

If there's something that the editors feel should be normative
in the deployment guide then I guess we'll need to deal with
that based on the next rev, but that should be easier if we
get rid of unnecessary 2119 language.

S.

Dave Crocker wrote:
> Just to make sure I understand:
> 
>    The decision is to remove all hints of being normative?  (Per the 
> recent exchange on the IETF mailing list, this won't hinge on case.)
> 
> 
> d/
> 
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Issue description: https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1561
>>
>> Thread: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q1/009790.html
>>
>>  From the thread people seem to support the thrust of the comment, i.e.
>> to reduce/eliminate 2119 language where possible and definitely
>> avoid it (regardless of case) where its not needed.
>>
>> Suggest we leave this open for now to let the editors concentrate
>> on the overview and process the deployment draft issue subsequently.
>>
>> S.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
>> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>>
>