Hi Micheal, I also just caught that, assuming is was an copy-and-past left over; I think the best options are either:
*** [RFC7413] states that TCP implementations "MUST NOT use TFO by default, but only use TFO if requested explicitly by the application on a per-service-port basis" [RFC7413]. *** -> explicit citation or *** TCP implementations can not use TFO by default, but only use TFO if requested explicitly by the application on a per-service-port basis [RFC7413]. *** -> no normative language Mirja > Am 11.09.2017 um 16:26 schrieb Michael Welzl <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > > Sorry for the noise and for my ignorance regarding IETF style here - > > this is indeed a mistake, in that the statement that you mention about TFO > was supposed to be a quote from RFC 7413, but doesn’t stand out as such (so, > good catch, thanks!). > > How do I make this clear enough to avoid a procedural problem - e.g., would > this be ok? > *** > TCP implementations MUST NOT use TFO by default, but only > use TFO if requested explicitly by the application on a per-service- > port basis [RFC7413]. > *** > > Or would it have to be, e.g.: > *** > [RFC7413] states that TCP implementations MUST NOT use TFO by default, but > only > use TFO if requested explicitly by the application on a per-service- > port basis [RFC7413]. > *** > > Thanks again, > > cheers, > Michael > > > >> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:13 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-08: No Record >> >> 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-taps-transports-usage/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I have not yet completed my review of this document, but I note that it is >> targeted for Informative but also contains RFC2119 normative language, e.g., >> >> "TCP implementations MUST NOT use >> TFO by default, but only use TFO if requested explicitly by the >> application on a per-service-port basis." >> >> If the intent is that this is to be Informational then this should be >> removed, >> and if it's to be BCP, then it needs to go back to IETF-LC for that >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
