jiebi/ids-paragraph-commentary-corpus huggingface dataset:
Draft: draft-ietf-sacm-requirements

Commentary: Per  ’s request , adding clarification on G-001
Solution Extensibility: The information model, data models,
protocols, and transports defined by SACM MUST be designed to
allow support for future extensions, including both standard and
proprietary transport protocols and data models.
The information model and device interfaces (see G-012) MUST
support the ability to add new operations while maintaining
backwards compatibility.  SACM-defined transport protocols MUST
have extensibility to allow them to transport operations that
are defined in the future.
Solution Extensibility: The information model, data models,
protocols, and transports defined by SACM MUST be designed to
allow support for future (SACM) extensions.  SACM SHOULD allow
implementations to use their own extensions; either proprietary
data models, protocols or extensions to SACM data models or
protocols could be used though they are not considered to be SACM
compliant.
The information model and programmatic interfaces (see G-012
for one example) MUST support the ability to add new operations
while maintaining backwards compatibility.  SACM-defined
transport protocols MUST have extensibility to allow them to
transport operations that are defined in the future.
Draft: draft-ietf-sacm-requirements

Commentary: Updates to address 3 of four open issues 
 Version -09 The document is not consistent if the character following the pithy title is capitalized . A pass needs to be made to fix this . 
 Hi  , I only found 1 straggler in IM- there are others please let me know so I can fold it into the -10 draft . Thanks ,    in  request 
 -version 09 There are two nits that needs to be resolved . 2119 boilerplate to RFC 3444 exists , but is not referred to . 
 Hi  , Will fix in -10 draft ..... Thanks ,    in  request
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119.
When the words appear in lower case, their natural language meaning
is used.
Full Vs.  Partial Updates: The data model SHOULD include the
ability to allow providers of data to provide the data as a whole,
or when updates occur.  For example, a consumer can request a full
update on initial engagement, then request to receive deltas
(updates containing only the changes since the last update) on an
ongoing basis as new data is generated.
Full vs. Partial Updates: The data model SHOULD include the
ability to allow providers of data to provide the data as a whole,
or when updates occur.  For example, a consumer can request a full
update on initial engagement, then request to receive deltas
(updates containing only the changes since the last update) on an
ongoing basis as new data is generated.
SACM information may contain sensitive information about the target
endpoint as well as revealing identity information of the producer or
consumer of such information.  Similarly, as part of the SACM
discovery mechanism, the advertised capabilities (and roles, e.g.
SACM components enabled) by the endpoint may be construed as private
information.  There may be applications as well as business and
regulatory practicess that require that aspects of such information
be hidden from any parties that do not need to know it.
Data confidentiality can provide some level of privacy but may fall
short where unecessary data is still transmitted.  In those cases,
filtering requirements at the data model such as OP-005 must be
applied to ensure that such data is not disclosed.  RFC6973 provides
guidelines for which SACM protocols and information and data models
should follow.