I am inclined to agree that it is better to change the right ones to upper case -- we really don't have a good reason to still be producing documents with this type of ambiguity anymore.
Once that is done we can decide whether the change is substantial enough to require re-running the last call. -Ben On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:50:19PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Personal opinion: > Given that to my reading "must" is used on the document in both the RFC > 2119 sense and in a conventional English language sense, it would be > worth clarifying the intention. As such, I think it would be better to > use the 8174 reference and go through changing the right ones to upper case. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 1/2/18 9:40 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: > > Hi Joel and Ben > > > > Author here. > > > > I think I've removed the section because in fact none of the keywords > > appears as capitalized inside the original document. In fact, RFC 8174 has > > "that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special > > meanings". > > > > I assume I'll need to go through the document and make some UPPERCASE and > > some not, depending on the actual meanings. > > > > Or, since this is a bis and changing the cases would be considered an > > re-intepretation of the whole document (which wasn't my goal), is it more > > reasonable to keep using RFC 2119 and leave all "must" and "required" in > > lowercase? > > > > Thanks > > Weijun > > > > > >> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Ben. That would be good. > >> Yours, > >> Joel > >> > >> On 1/2/18 8:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > >>> Hi Joel, > >>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote: > >>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern > >>>> Review result: Ready with Issues > >>>> > >>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > >>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > >>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > >>>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > >>>> > >>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at > >>>> > >>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > >>>> > >>>> Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06 > >>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern > >>>> Review Date: 2018-01-02 > >>>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11 > >>>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25 > >>>> > >>>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard > >>>> RFC > >>>> > >>>> Major issues: None > >>>> > >>>> Minor issues: > >>>> Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no > >>>> reference to > >>>> RFCs 2119 or 8174. Some of the uses of "must" int he document are > >>>> along > >>>> the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language. > >>>> But > >>>> other uses are clearly normative in structure. It is unclear why > >>>> the > >>>> reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update. > >>> Thanks for the review -- I'm a bit surprised that id-nits does not > >>> complain about the omission. > >>> I do not know why the -00 dropped that clause, but it does seem like > >>> the current normal text citing 8174 should be added before > >>> publication. > >>> -Ben > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
