Joel, thanks for your review. I think the WG will need to review the changes to make sure people agree with which keywords become capitalized. I’m holding a DISCUSS about that.
Alissa > On Jan 2, 2018, at 10:48 PM, Weijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
