Hi Vijay, and thank you for your review! The distinction between MUST and SHALL in this document is intentional. We use MUST to indicate "if X happens, then you MUST do Y" whereas we use SHALL to indicate "The procedure is as follows: step 1 you SHALL do Z". Based on previous RFCs published by this WG and on guidance from the IESG, the choice between MUST and SHALL lies with the editors. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your advice and will leave the text as-is.
Thank you, David On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 1:40 PM Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani > Review result: Ready > > 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 treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-08 > Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani > Review Date: 2023-03-03 > IETF LC End Date: 2023-03-15 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: The I-D is ready for moving ahead as a Proposed Standard. > > Major issues: 0 > > Minor issues: 1 > > Nits/editorial comments: 0 > > Minor Issue: > - The I-D alternates between MUST and SHALL, sometimes using both in the > same > sentence or paragraph. Between MUST and SHALL, my advise is to be > consistent > and pick one. All things being equal, MUST is preferable since a neophyte > reader of the I-D, not well versed in IETF ways, can easily understand the > authority behind MUST. > > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
