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
