On Wednesday, 20 August, 2025 22:34, "Shumon Huque" <shu...@gmail.com> said:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 8:53 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <[
rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org ]( mailto:rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org )>
wrote:
Hi Olafur and Shumon,
Thank you for your review and comments. We have updated the document
accordingly and have a few followup questions/notes:
b)
> Section 7.1
> OLD:
> insists that pseudo-types must be clear
> NEW:
> insists that pseudo-types are not set
We have not updated as indicated above. Would “not be set” be better than “are
not set”? Shumon also notes that 'The "must be clear" phrasing came from
re-using the phrasing in the original RFC text. But I'm not attached to it.’
Please discuss and let us know if any updates are needed.
I'm happy with the text as currently written. (And for the reason cited -- that
it re-uses a phrase from the cited RFC).
I also don't think there is any lack of clarity here. A bit being clear means
that it is not set.
Olafur - if you feel strongly about the change, please elaborate on your
reasoning.
[OG]
The text originates in a pre-RFC2119 RFC.
In my experience with industry people many of them do not grasp the difference
between MUST and must
in an RFC they have been handed to implement, thus they treat them as the same.
For that reason I have tried to minimize any use of lower case 2119 words in
drafts.
[OG]c) Note that we will ask AD approval for all changes that are “above
editorial”. This includes changes to values and 2119 key words. We will send
that request in a separate email once the questions above are addressed.
Okay, we'll await the AD's response/approval.
Thank you,
Shumon.
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
