Subject: [6lowpan] #95: IESG comment #4 - SHOULD/MUST about secure delivery support

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:42:13 -0000

#95: IESG comment #4 -  SHOULD/MUST about secure delivery support
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  carlesgo@…              |       Owner:     
     Type:  enhancement             |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                   |   Milestone:     
Component:  routing-requirements    |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                       |    Keywords:     
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Sec 5.4: Why isn't a MUST support secure delivery?   To me, SHOULD means
 the protocol might not support the option of secure delivery/transport.
 That is a bad thing in my book.  If you make it MUST support then it's
 built-in when you need it.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/95>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>

---

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:42:37 -0000

#95: IESG comment #4 -  SHOULD/MUST about secure delivery support
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  carlesgo@…              |        Owner:        
     Type:  enhancement             |       Status:  closed
 Priority:  minor                   |    Milestone:        
Component:  routing-requirements    |      Version:        
 Severity:  -                       |   Resolution:  fixed 
 Keywords:                          |  
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Changes (by carlesgo@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 Replaced SHOULD with MUST.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/95#comment:1>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>