On 23 May 2016, at 19:32, Rong Pan (ropan) wrote:
I am not sure how to address the following.
Instead of ³SHOULD², what would be a good alternative word?
The question is, are the features intended to be truly optional, or
things people really should implement unless they have a really good
reason not to?
If the former, then you could change the SHOULDs to MAYs. If the latter,
then you could describe them as "recommended" features vs "optional"
features.
Regarding ³experimental², Chair, Mirja, what would be the best way
to
address?
I don't mean to speak for Mirja, but from my own perspective, there is
language in the shepherd's write up that could be adapted for the
introduction, or a short separate section.
Thanks,
Ben.
Thanks,
Rong
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In section 5 and its children: Please keep in mind that "SHOULD" does
not
mean quite the same thing as "optional".
It would be nice to see some text about the nature of the
"experiment".
That is, why is this experimental? Do you expect to promote this to a
standard in the future? (The shepherd's report speaks of this; the
draft
should, too.)
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
