On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 2:16 PM Robert Sparks <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> >> Some high-level points before going into a document-order set of comments: >> >> ** The IANA considerations section does not provide a clear set of >> instructions >> for IANA to follow. >> > > Ok, could you be a little bit more specific > > You can get AD help here. See section 2.2 of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8126/. > > 9.2 is where I am concerned. > > Please add an explicit statement that you are asking IANA to create a new > top-level registry named RIFT with the following subregistries under it. > yes, no problem. > > > >> >> The nested numbered lists in section 5.2.3.9 are perhaps not the best >> tool for >> describing the algorithms you want to convey. On page 46, steps 4.3.3 and >> 4.4 >> are comments, not actions. Numbering them as you number actions is >> confusing. >> > > any better suggestions? (I will move from numbering to number.latin.other > and so on). This is > an old technique in protocol specs to allow implementors to discuss very, > very precise statement > and their meaning (e.g. ISIS spec is all written like that). Otherwise > people start to talk about > "4th line in the algorithm X" which is far more confusing. > > number.latin.other will help. > ok, thanks > > rfc2txt does not have a mechanism to "skip numbering for this item" when > genreeating > lists unless I'm oblivious to it so I'm limited by the tools IETF provides > to render documents. > > Do you mean xml2rfc when you say rfc2txt? > yes, correct. sorry. > > > >> >> It's particularly unclear what you are trying to achive with the >> "DirectionMaxValue" registry entry defined in 9.2.11.1 Are you trying to >> say >> the registry is not allowed any more values? If so, just say that in the >> instructions to IANA. I don't see where the codepoint is used by the >> protocol, >> so I suggest it not be added to the registry. >> > > implementation specific basically. Can be removed but allows in > implementation to > use the codepoint to scale arrays for example. > > If the registry takes > > DirectionMaxValue > > > for e.g. version 3.0 schema this value could move. Alternately we could split > a registry > _per schema version_ but that seems a huge proliferation and replication. > > > I'm agnostic either way and would like to hear an opinion here > > I'll punt this to the group/AD. > ack > > > >> >> Also in Appendix A, I question the sentence "The >: relationship is >> symmetric >> but not transitive". Symmetric says "if A>:B then B>:A". >> > > yes, symmetric means "if A>:B then B>:A" precisely what you say and the > relation holds. > > non transitive means obviously that > > A>:B and B>:C does NOT imply A>:C > > Obvious example of the 3-bit arithmetic is > > 4 >: 2 & 2 >: 0 does NOT follow in 4 >: 0 > > I will reread. 4 >: 2 and 2 >: 4 surprises me. > oh, sorry, that's the objection, I thought you objected to transitive and focused on that. yes, you're correct, it's not symmetric, I was blind and implied 4 >: 2 <=> 2 <: 4 which is not symmetry of course. I will correct. >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
