Re: (formal) comment on security considerations

Harry Halpin wrote:
> Jeremy,
>    
>     The final decision in DanC's hands, but we already decided as a WG
> not to use conformance labels. However, we do want implementers to be
> aware of security issues. So, if that text was added to section 7 as
> informative text and we substituted the words "GRDDL-aware agent" for
> "GRDDL-aware processor", would you feel like your comment has been
> addressed?
>

Of course.

In terms of "GRDDL-aware processor" I simply made a mistake.

I would be more comfortable with normative text but ...

Jeremy