Lee Howard wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Dave Cridland
Consider:
"An octet may contain 0-255".
"An octet contains 0-255".
"An octet might contain 0-255" - or it might not?
"The Foo octet MUST lie between 0 and 127 in
Total of 57 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 18 00:53:03 EDT 2012
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
10.53% |6 | 7.75% |35365 | d...@dcrocker.net
5.26% |3 | 11.69% |53304 | elw...@folly.org
Hi Elwyn,
We're submitted a -14 draft to address your comments. Again, see the
response to each of these issues in the attached document.
Thanks again,
Jean-Marc
On 12-05-16 05:26 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> Hi, Jean-Marc.
>
> ... and thanks for the super-quick response! You have been
Hi, Jean-Marc.
... and thanks for the super-quick response! You have been quite busy.
I have had a look through the new draft and I think the additions help
considerably with comprehension for the naive (and to give new
implementers a way in.)
I'll leave you to negotiate with the RFC Editor ove
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Dave Cridland
> Consider:
>
> "An octet may contain 0-255".
> "An octet contains 0-255".
> "An octet might contain 0-255" - or it might not?
> "The Foo octet MUST lie between 0 and 127 inclusiv
I think the authors just about have a -14 draft ready but I wanted to comment
on one topic inline
On May 16, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> Hi, Jean-Marc.
>
> ... and thanks for the super-quick response! You have been quite busy.
>
> I have had a look through the new draft and
On 2012-05-16 22:29, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed May 16 21:10:02 2012, Randy Bush wrote:
> Authors must be fastidious about this.
s/this/documents/
RFC 2119 §6 says:
Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where
Randy Bush wrote:
> can != may
>
> one is ability, the other permission
Right, and if you are giving some entity permission to do something in a
protocol spec, surely that ought to be written in normative terms.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
FitzRoy: Cyclonic at times in far n
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 07:17:04AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Case does not define meaning in normal language, why should it here?
>
> That is false. Consider these two passages:
>
> The King asked the Queen,
> and the Queen asked the dairy-maid …
>
> vs
>
>
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Barton"
To:
Cc: "Barry Leiba"
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:18 AM
> On 05/16/2012 06:59, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > In fact, RFC 2119 says that the normative keywords are "often
> > capitalized", but doesn't require that they be.
>
> Standards should be writ
At 14:53 16-05-2012, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Managed Incident Lightweight
Exchange WG (mile) to consider the following document:
- 'Guidelines for Defining Extensions to IODEF'
as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and s
11 matches
Mail list logo
