Initial IMI RFC 2119 review

["Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

Since I think ed-08 is about the get published, I figured I'd get this
initial comment out, since I'm reviewing based on ed-07.

Against ed-07 PDF:

Suggest these be uncapitalized:

All of section 1.2

Lines 86, 229, 288, 292 (at least the REQUIRED/OPTIONAL), 304 (REQUIRED),
333, 340 (OPTIONAL), 348, 387 (REQUIRED), 415, 441, 444, 449, 452, 457, 461,
465, 467 (OPTIONAL), 470, 471, 475, 477, 479 (OPTIONAL), 483, 485
(OPTIONAL), 489, 517, 521, 564, 568, 570, 575, 578, 582, 659, 661, 681, 683,
685, 687, 690, 714, 718-721, 725 (REQUIRED), 737, 739, 757 (OPTIONAL), 772,
775, 777, 779, 924-925 (OPTIONAL), 928, 976, 978, 1010, 

Other comments:

Lines 273-274, suggest rephrasing:
If no explicit key type is specified by the Relying Party, then an Identity
Selector SHOULD request an asymmetric key token from the Identity Provider
to maximize user privacy and security.

-- Scott