Detailed requirements should be in specification body instead of Conformance clause

"Conformance clause says:
""OBIX servers MUST implement the OBIX Lobby Object.""

That seems to repeat what Section 5 Lobby states in 1st sentence:
""All OBIX servers MUST provide an Object which implements obix:Lobby. ""

NOTE: It is also vague what ""providing an object"" means. The verb provide is used for very diverse purpose (""provide information"", etc.) Do we rather mean ""contains"" or ""refers to"" an object?

It is also repeated in further in the clause as:
""1. OBIX Servers MUST have an accessible Object which implements the obix:Lobby Contract""

All such repetitions should be avoided.

In particular the Conformance clause seems to be detailing schema constraints/requirements that should have been stated in the body of the specification, Section 5 ""Lobby"", along with the definition of the Lobby Contract . it seems that is the place to say things like ""The Lobby MUST provide a <ref> to an Object which implements the obix:About Contract"", etc. Then the conf clause can just say that Servers conform if they ""satisfy all of the MUST and REQUIRED level requirements defined ... in Section 5 Lobby, and ...""

It would be understandable to have the Server conf clause express such requirements if there was other ways to conform that put different requirements on the Lobby COntract elements, but that is not the case ."