Sounds good, will change accordingly… Rong
On 5/25/16, 2:24 PM, "Ben Campbell" <b...@nostrum.com> wrote: >On 24 May 2016, at 16:50, Rong Pan (ropan) wrote: > >> I have specified whether a certain feature is optional or not. If an >> implementor indeed decides to implement an option, then they >> “should” >> implement certain things specified in that section. I am afraid >> “MAY” >> would cause the optional feature not being implemented correctly. > >That's reasonable, but the draft doesn't seem to be worded that way. For >example, 5.1 starts with, "PIE SHOULD support ECN by marking (rather >than dropping) ECN capable >packets". That SHOULD is ambiguous as to whether it applies to the fact >of supporting ECN, or the mechanisms to be used if it is supported. I >think most people will interpret that to mean both. > >Perhaps it should say something like "Implementations MAY support ECN >marking. If they do so, they SHOULD..." > >There are similar "SHOULD" constructs in the other 5.x sections. > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Rong >> >> >> On 5/23/16, 5:45 PM, "Ben Campbell" <b...@nostrum.com> wrote: >> >>> On 23 May 2016, at 19:32, Rong Pan (ropan) wrote: >>> >>>> I am not sure how to address the following. >>>> >>>> Instead of ³SHOULD², what would be a good alternative word? >>> >>> >>> The question is, are the features intended to be truly optional, or >>> things people really should implement unless they have a really good >>> reason not to? >>> >>> If the former, then you could change the SHOULDs to MAYs. If the >>> latter, >>> then you could describe them as "recommended" features vs "optional" >>> features. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Regarding ³experimental², Chair, Mirja, what would be the best way >>>> to >>>> address? >>> >>> I don't mean to speak for Mirja, but from my own perspective, there >>> is >>> language in the shepherd's write up that could be adapted for the >>> introduction, or a short separate section. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ben. >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Rong >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> COMMENT: >>>>> >>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> In section 5 and its children: Please keep in mind that "SHOULD" >>>>> does >>>>> not >>>>> mean quite the same thing as "optional". >>>>> >>>>> It would be nice to see some text about the nature of the >>>>> "experiment". >>>>> That is, why is this experimental? Do you expect to promote this to >>>>> a >>>>> standard in the future? (The shepherd's report speaks of this; the >>>>> draft >>>>> should, too.) >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
