I've uploaded an updated version at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/rfc5653bis/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07.html
before submitting a new I-D draft. This page shows all keywords in color (gray for lowercase, red for uppercase), hopefully this will be easy for everyone to review. Thanks Weijun > On Jan 24, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Alissa Cooper <ali...@cooperw.in> wrote: > > Joel, thanks for your review. I think the WG will need to review the changes > to make sure people agree with which keywords become capitalized. I’m holding > a DISCUSS about that. > > Alissa > >> On Jan 2, 2018, at 10:48 PM, Weijun Wang <weijun.w...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the suggestion. I'll go through the doc and post another version. >> >> --Weijun >> >>> On Jan 3, 2018, at 11:08 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: >>> >>> I am inclined to agree that it is better to change the right ones to >>> upper case -- we really don't have a good reason to still be >>> producing documents with this type of ambiguity anymore. >>> >>> Once that is done we can decide whether the change is >>> substantial enough to require re-running the last call. >>> >>> -Ben >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:50:19PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>>> Personal opinion: >>>> Given that to my reading "must" is used on the document in both the RFC >>>> 2119 sense and in a conventional English language sense, it would be >>>> worth clarifying the intention. As such, I think it would be better to >>>> use the 8174 reference and go through changing the right ones to upper >>>> case. >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> Joel >>>> >>>> On 1/2/18 9:40 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: >>>>> Hi Joel and Ben >>>>> >>>>> Author here. >>>>> >>>>> I think I've removed the section because in fact none of the keywords >>>>> appears as capitalized inside the original document. In fact, RFC 8174 >>>>> has "that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special >>>>> meanings". >>>>> >>>>> I assume I'll need to go through the document and make some UPPERCASE and >>>>> some not, depending on the actual meanings. >>>>> >>>>> Or, since this is a bis and changing the cases would be considered an >>>>> re-intepretation of the whole document (which wasn't my goal), is it more >>>>> reasonable to keep using RFC 2119 and leave all "must" and "required" in >>>>> lowercase? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Weijun >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Ben. That would be good. >>>>>> Yours, >>>>>> Joel >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/2/18 8:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Joel, >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote: >>>>>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >>>>>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >>>>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >>>>>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your >>>>>>>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06 >>>>>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >>>>>>>> Review Date: 2018-01-02 >>>>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11 >>>>>>>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard >>>>>>>> RFC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Major issues: None >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Minor issues: >>>>>>>> Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no reference >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> RFCs 2119 or 8174. Some of the uses of "must" int he document are >>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>> the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language. >>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>> other uses are clearly normative in structure. It is unclear why >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update. >>>>>>> Thanks for the review -- I'm a bit surprised that id-nits does not >>>>>>> complain about the omission. >>>>>>> I do not know why the -00 dropped that clause, but it does seem like >>>>>>> the current normal text citing 8174 should be added before >>>>>>> publication. >>>>>>> -Ben >>>>> >>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> Gen-art@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
