Dear Alexey,
Thank you for your comments,
> 1) "COULD" is not one of RFC 2119 keywords, so it shouldn't be uppercased in
> order to avoid causing confusion for readers.
We make all “COULD” lowercased.
> 2) In Section 10 the document says:
>> Compared with [RFC4925], the security concerns SHOULD be considered
>> more carefully: ...
> This is not a requirement statement on implementations or operators, so use of
> SHOULD is not appropriate here. So please lowercase it to avoid RFC 2119
> meaning.
We lowercase it.
Best Regards,
Shu Yang
------------------
杨术
欧德蒙科技有限公司
This message may contain privileged and confidential information only for the
use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this
message you are hereby notified that any use, distribution or reproduction of
this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please
notify the sender immediately.
------------------ Original ------------------
From: "Alexey Melnikov"<[email protected]>;
Date: Thu, Sep 27, 2018 00:32 AM
To: "The IESG"<[email protected]>;
Cc: "softwires"<[email protected]>;
"draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast"<[email protected]>;
"softwire-chairs"<[email protected]>;
Subject: [Softwires] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on
draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: (with COMMENT)
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-23: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of nits:
1) "COULD" is not one of RFC 2119 keywords, so it shouldn't be uppercased in
order to avoid causing confusion for readers.
2) In Section 10 the document says:
Compared with [RFC4925], the security concerns SHOULD be considered
more carefully: ...
This is not a requirement statement on implementations or operators, so use of
SHOULD is not appropriate here. So please lowercase it to avoid RFC 2119
meaning.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
