> 1. The last paragraph of section 5.1, please change "should" to > "SHOULD". It says: > As a result, when used with IEEE 802.1X, all RADIUS packets are > authenticated and integrity protected, and should be replay protected > using IPsec. I have a general concern here. IMO, "SHOULD" and "should" are pretty much equivalent. I.e., is it OK to ignore a "should" but not a "SHOULD"? Do we expect folk to do that? Does "SHOULD" really carry more weight than "should"? And if so, what does that say about documents that don't use 2119 terminology? Note: there is no general requirement that documents use 2119 language. I suspect the community would not be pleased if we were to require it. Personally, I tell people to use SHOULD, etc. in specific cases where they are already using the language, but the wording in a particular place is not clear. But I don't see it being that useful in general to change a "should" to "SHOULD", etc. I'm wary of going down this route as it has all sorts of implications for how we review documents in general. Is this a direction we should be going in? Thomas