> Correct whatever stays or is added from 121 instead.
You mean 93?
-- Sanjay
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, Jun 07, 2006 19:53 PM
> To: Anish Karmarkar; Doug Davis
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD
> 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9
>
> As you point out, it isn't really a problem per se as it is.
> So I'd say don't worry about the Sec. 5 2119 terms for now.
>
> Marc Goodner
> (425) 703-1903
> (Sent from Windows Mobile 5.0)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Anish Karmarkar" <>
> To: "Doug Davis" <>
> Cc: ""
> <>
> Sent: 6/7/06 5:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD
> 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9
>
> Looks ok to me.
>
>
> I did a search for the 2119 lowercase keywords ('may',
> 'should' ...) and
> found that there are instances where they are not capitalized (for
> example, in the sec consideration section). If these were
> intended to be
> 2119 keywords then to be consistent with our typographical
> convention we
> should capitalize them. If not, we should find suitable alternatives.
> 2119 does *not* require the keywords to be capitalized, so
> leaving them
> as is imply that they are to be interpreted in the same way as their
> capitalized brethren.
>
> -Anish
> --
>
> Doug Davis wrote:
> >
> > ok - Marc (editors), see if this version looks ok to you.
> > -Doug
>
