Folks,
I agree - no reason to delay!
There is one small difference between what is in the document and what
is in the RFC I pointed to
The document has "...as described in [BCP 14] [RFC2119] [RFC8174]..."
While RFC has "...as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]..."
The reference list
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)" wrote:
Hi Acee,
that is
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
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.
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
