Alvaro - Thanx for the clarification. I will address this in the next revision.
Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2021 9:10 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps > <cho...@chopps.org>; Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.i...@gmail.com> > Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-cha...@ietf.org>; lsr-...@ietf.org; TEAS WG > (t...@ietf.org) <t...@ietf.org>; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; teas- > a...@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Lsr] [Teas] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis > > On March 3, 2021 at 6:29:28 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote: > > > Les: > > Hi! > > > ... > > Now, can you respond to my comment regarding the lack of clarity in using > > quotes? > > Sure. > > I guess you mean this comment: "But I have to say that for me as a > reader the use of quotes as you suggest does not aid clarity." > > > Dhruv's comment was about using normative language in the appendix: > > > > (1) Is it wise to use normative keywords MUST and SHOULD in the > appendix? > > > The text is from section 3.1 but can it be reworded in the appendix? > > He is absolutely correct in suggesting that the appendix could use > different words. As I mentioned before, the appendix is just an > informative section, a good/nice-to-have explanation for the reader. > That means that it doesn't have to be an exact transcription of the > text (which you didn't have to start with), and it can simply be an > explanation. > > The way I see it, using normative language in an informational > appendix is what makes the text lack clarity -- the quotes were meant > to help a little without asking you to make too many changes. That > way it would at least be clear that the specification is made > elsewhere. > > I know we may never agree on which direction to look at clarity. We > have already spent too much time on this. > > Alvaro. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
