[Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists draft updated.

[Chris Lewis]

David Nicol wrote:
>> it isn't clear whose "intent" is referred to -
>> though I guess we mean the intent of the provider not the user
> 
> which would be solved by clearly sectioning into BCP for providing and
> BCP for use, no guessing would be req'd after that

I'd prefer not to do any major surgery on the document at this point. 
It's been _way_ too long already (though that's probably not a very good 
reason ;-).

It would cause some significant flow/replication/redundancy uglies.  But 
I do see the point about interspersing them.

I'm considering a brief summarization section of the "SHOULD/MUST/MAY" 
split between user and provider.   Thoughts?

BTW: thanks for all the comments.  I'm filing them away for a run at 
updates.  I'll be adopting almost all of them (if someone can show me 
how in XML to not have the RFC number replicate in references ;-)  It's 
nice to see that I seem to have gotten it to the point where there isn't 
any substantive changes apparently needed.