On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 08:58, Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> Thanks for trying this out.
>
> Please make sure the below rationale for omitting "reserve"
> is in the prose part of the next update of your paper.
> (prose part = any part other than the to-be normative wording)
>
> Future generations (such as reviewers in LEWG) should be
> able to find out why "reserve" isn't available.
>

Sure, will document the decision and rationale, regardless of what the
eventual conclusion is from subsequent testing.