Hi Ben,
On 1/23/18, 9:47 PM, "Ben Campbell" <b...@nostrum.com> wrote:
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-21: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-1.1: There are instances of lower case 2119 keywords. Please consider using
the boilerplate from RFC 8174.
This is clearly the intent. This change will be in the -22 version with RFC
8174 as a normative reference.
1.1. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
