Last Call: 'Link-layer Event Notifications for Detecting Network Attachments' to Informational RFC (

Hi Pekka,
   I do not see what you mean by "implementation hints
should be removed 
or reworded". Do you mean not using normative language?

Cheers
Suresh

Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>>>  I do however have one bigger
"meta-comment".  The draft is aiming
>>>  Informational, but includes normative
specification (also in 
>>> uppercase).
>>>  What is the goal of this draft?  Offer
information on how various link
>>>  layers specify L2 notifications (aimed at the
general public/background
>>>  for DNA WG, and possibly implementors), and/or
to make implementation
>>>  specifications of its own (aimed at
implementors)?
>>
>> It is the former.
> 
> In that case I think the recommendations
("implementation hints") should 
> be removed or reworded in such a way impact (or lack
thereof) is 
> clearer.  For example, draft-ietf-dkim-base-07.txt
includes some similar 
> text but it's clearly separated from the rest; that
might be one way to 
> go, but other approaches are probably also possible.
>