Jari & Miguel:
- Section 3.1, the first paragraph on page 7. The text reads: "If
the policy indicates that it can continue, the peer SHOULD log a
warning message or display it to the user." Honestly, it is hard to
find a justification of the SHOULD strength here, when the action
does not affect protocol interoperability and it takes in the same
node. My point is that the normative text of the standard should
focus on protocol interoperability, not on the details of the
implementation. I would accept a non-capitalized verb though.
I decided to keep the SHOULD. Remember that while this does not
affect interoperability between the endpoints, it is an action that
the spec recommends to be performed. Furthermore, the action is
something that is visible outside the implementation (e.g., a syslog
entry is created in some server somewhere).
I think Russ has had to deal with situations like this in the past,
perhaps you have some advice for us? Russ, if you want me to change
this, I will.
I have no real good advice, and the 'or' in the sentence makes it
harder of offer something. What would the user do with this
information if it was displayed? What would the network operator do
with this information if it was logged? Since the 'or' means that
neither one is consistently going to get the information, the answer
is more difficult.
It certainly does not impact interoperability, so I do not consider
it a shwstopper.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
