On 24 May 2016, at 16:50, Rong Pan (ropan) wrote:
I have specified whether a certain feature is optional or not. If an
implementor indeed decides to implement an option, then they
“should”
implement certain things specified in that section. I am afraid
“MAY”
would cause the optional feature not being implemented correctly.
That's reasonable, but the draft doesn't seem to be worded that way. For
example, 5.1 starts with, "PIE SHOULD support ECN by marking (rather
than dropping) ECN capable
packets". That SHOULD is ambiguous as to whether it applies to the fact
of supporting ECN, or the mechanisms to be used if it is supported. I
think most people will interpret that to mean both.
Perhaps it should say something like "Implementations MAY support ECN
marking. If they do so, they SHOULD..."
There are similar "SHOULD" constructs in the other 5.x sections.
Thanks,
Rong
On 5/23/16, 5:45 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote:
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
