And the rest of the review: Line 2519, I think should --> SHOULD, since elsewhere we use SHOULD for sending the error token to the peer.
Line 2561, I could go either way on "may" vs. "MAY" -- the argument for the former would be that it's just stating an attribute of the operation, and this text is describing something specified elsewhere and not introducing any restrictions or giving guidance on it. Similarly for acceptSecContext on line 2597. Line 2668, SHOULD not --> SHOULD NOT Line 2858, MAY --> may, since this is just describing what some implementations could be doing and not exactly granting permission for it. I guess for consistency I should say the same thing about line 3049. Line 3716, MUST not --> MUST NOT In general, things looked quite good; I do not think I can say thank you enough for putting this together. Greg, would you be able to sanity-check the above (and one below) comment? Thanks, Ben On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 11:35:34AM -0600, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > I am doing a review now. (Line 413, "SHOULD not" --> "SHOULD NOT" > is all I have so far.) > > And I will second Greg's comment about this format being an awesome > way to view these changes -- thank you again for putting them > together! > > -Ben > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:17:35PM +0800, Weijun Wang wrote: > > I will submit a new draft tomorrow if there is no other feedback. > > > > Thanks > > Weijun > > > > > On Jan 29, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Weijun Wang <weijun.w...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > The HTML file updated in place. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Weijun > > > > > >> On Jan 27, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Greg Hudson <ghud...@mit.edu> wrote: > > >> > > >> On 01/23/2018 06:43 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: > > >>> I've uploaded an updated version at > > >>> > > >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/rfc5653bis/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07.html > > >> > > >> This is a great format for reviewing these changes; thanks for > > >> generating it. > > >> > > >> Line 416 does not capitalize "optional" in "optional services", but > > >> lines 385 and 391 do. > > >> > > >> Lines 422 and 424 should probably capitalize "should". Line 429 should > > >> probably capitalize "may". > > >> > > >> At line 598, I would lean towards leaving "MUST" in lowercase as we are > > >> describing an application requirement, not prescribing one. > > >> > > >> Line 1174, I would leave "MAY" in lowercase. > > >> > > >> Line 1229, "may" should probably be capitalized. > > >> > > >> Line 1369, I would leave "MAY" alone as this seems more descriptive than > > >> prescriptive. > > >> > > >> Line 3221's use of "SHOULD" is prescriptive, but there's no other way to > > >> request the default QOP. So I would leave it lowercase (or change the > > >> wording, but I'm not trying to open any more cans of worms). > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Kitten mailing list > > > kit...@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
