--- a/model/comments/issue-459-paul.txt	Tue Aug 07 11:32:55 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-459-paul.txt	Tue Aug 07 11:36:31 2012 +0100
@@ -19,6 +19,12 @@
    > help implementors. Additionally, in section 6 you mention a proof in
    > an appendix. This is technical content so either needs to be or not
    > mentioned.
+
+I made this appendix non-normative. This allows us to do it later.
+
+@James: OK?
+
+
    > 
    > 2.  Regarding ISSUE-346: Is the role, meaning, and intended use of
    > each type of inference or constraint clear?
@@ -51,6 +57,9 @@
    > would want to identify that has two independent activities. Thus, I
    > think it's irreflexive. Actually, maybe this is suggesting the need
    > for a part of relation around activities.
+
+no action.
+
    > 
    > 5.  Are there any objections to closing other open issues on
    > PROV-CONSTRAINTS?  They are:
@@ -65,6 +74,9 @@
    > 6.  Are there any new issues concerning definitions, constraints, or inferences?
    > No
    > 
+
+no action.
+
    > 
    > ==Comments==
    > 

--- a/model/prov-constraints.html	Tue Aug 07 11:32:55 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/prov-constraints.html	Tue Aug 07 11:36:31 2012 +0100
@@ -3572,7 +3572,7 @@
     </section> 
 
 
-      <section class="appendix" id="termination">
+      <section class="appendix informative" id="termination">
       <h2>Termination of normalization</h2>
 <div class="note">TODO: give proof that normalization terminates and
       produces unique normal forms.