Jim Bound: I have several objections that need to be resolved before
this SEND spec moving to Proposed Stnndard status.

First it is not clear until Section 8 of the specification that this
work only applies to SEND nodes (it is alluded to prior to that but
states see section 8).  That should be stated clearly and succintly in
the introduction section.  This is very important to note to the
community and implementors immediately in the spec.

------

Margaret Wasserman: Jim, regarding the issue of whether this draft
makes it clear that there can be non-SEND nodes, the introduction
mentions that section 8 describes compatibility with non-SEND nodes,
and the terminology section describes a non-SEND node as a node that
does not implement this specification.

What other wording would you like to see included?

------

Jari Arkko: I'm open to suggested text. But see also Margaret's comments above.

------

Jari Arkko: As a part of the IESG review issues, I believe Section 8
and the role of SEND/non-SEND nodes has been made clearer.

------