Thanks for the suggestion. I'll go through the doc and post another version.
--Weijun > On Jan 3, 2018, at 11:08 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
