Hi Peter, Strange, I'd remove the reference to [BCP14] since RFC 8174 and BCP 14 are the same document. I'm going to request publication as this certainly isn't enough to delay for an update.
Thanks, Acee On 7/9/18, 8:26 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[email protected]> wrote: 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
