Hi Acee,
that is exactly what I have in the draft.
thanks,
Peter
On 09/07/18 13:36 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Peter,
The new boiler plate for requirements language, with references to both RFC
2119 and RFC 8174, is:
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This should resolve the IDNITS warning.
Thanks,
Acee
On 7/9/18, 5:14 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Yingzhen,
thanks for your review.
As regards to first IDNITS warning, not sure about the first one, I took
the section "Requirements Language" from RFC8395 as suggested by Loa.
RFC2119 is only referenced there, that should not be a problem though.
I removed the reference to ISO10589.
thanks,
Peter
On 09/07/18 00:41 , Yingzhen Qu wrote:
> Dear authors,
>
> I have done shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-lls-id-04 as requested by
> LSR chairs. I’d like to thank all authors for their contributions on
> this document, also people who have reviewed this document and provided
> valuable comments and discussions.
>
> The document is well written and ready for publication.
>
> IDNITS check found a couple of nits:
>
> Miscellaneous warnings:
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ** The document contains RFC2119-like boilerplate, but doesn't seem to
>
> mention RFC 2119. The boilerplate contains a reference [BCP14],
> but that
>
> reference does not seem to mention RFC 2119 either.
>
> -- The document date (July 1, 2018) is 7 days in the past. Is this
>
> intentional?
>
> Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
> references
>
> to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>
> == Unused Reference: 'ISO10589' is defined on line 200, but no
explicit
>
> reference was found in the text
>
> '[ISO10589] International Organization for Standardization,
> "Intermed...'
>
> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP14'
>
> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589'
>
> Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments
(--).
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yingzhen
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
