On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 04:23:36PM -0500, Nadeau Thomas wrote:
>
>
> It might be clearer to use SHOULD (or SHOULD NOT) instead of MAY or MAY
> NOT.
>
In RFC 2119, MAY and SHOULD mean two very different things so you
can't simply change MAY to SHOULD without likely going through another
r
[As a contributor]
Hi Benoit,
Thank you for your proactive AD review. Below are my responses to your
comments.
>- Editorial: I see many instances of (see term) or (see terms).
>This doesn't add any value IMO.
>If there are some chance for misinterpretation of those terms,
>capitalize the te
> On Jan 12, 2016:4:04 PM, at 4:04 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> [As a contributor]
>
> From Benoit:
>
> Yes, I've seen those RFCs. The IETF is not really consistent regarding RFC
> 2119 and requirement documents.
> So I wanted to put the issue on the table. No strong view on way or the other.
>
[As a contributor]
From Benoit:
Yes, I've seen those RFCs. The IETF is not really consistent regarding RFC 2119
and requirement documents.
So I wanted to put the issue on the table. No strong view on way or the other.
[Kent] thanks.
Changing the MAY keywords the way you proposed is one soluti
Dear all,
I know that this draft is not yet on my table, but in order to speed up
the process, I read v3.
- Editorial: I see many instances of (see term) or (see terms).
This doesn't add any value IMO.
If there are some chance for misinterpretation of those terms,
capitalize the terms specifi
On 12/01/2016 16:02, Gert Grammel wrote:
On 2016-12-01 15:04, "Robert Wilton" wrote:
On 12/01/2016 10:42, Gert Grammel wrote:
On 2016-12-01 11:12, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton"
wrote:
On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 2016-12-01 15:04, "Robert Wilton" wrote:
>
>
>On 12/01/2016 10:42, Gert Grammel wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-12-01 11:12, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> On
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 16:38, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
> Lada,
>>> On 08 Jan 2016, at 16:20, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Lada,
>>>
>>> On 08/01/2016 12:30, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton writes:
> Hi Lada,
>
> I think that requirement 1D is fairly key to what is
Lada,
On 08 Jan 2016, at 16:20, Robert Wilton wrote:
Hi Lada,
On 08/01/2016 12:30, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Robert Wilton writes:
Hi Lada,
I think that requirement 1D is fairly key to what is being asked for
here to allow both the user and system to easily relate between what the
operator d
Hi Kent,
[btw, speaking as a contributor]
Hi Benoit,
You use MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and you refer to RFC 2119. Fine.
However, it might be beneficial to say something such as in RFC 7698
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMEND
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 14:29, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/01/2016 10:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> On 12 Jan 2016, at 11:12, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> On
On 12/01/2016 10:42, Gert Grammel wrote:
On 2016-12-01 11:12, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton"
wrote:
On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka
On 12/01/2016 10:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 12 Jan 2016, at 11:12, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11
On 2016-12-01 11:12, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton"
wrote:
>
>
>On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Martin Bjorklund writes:
>>
>>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2016, at 11:12, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Martin Bjorklund writes:
>>
>>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>
On 12/01/2016 09:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Martin Bjorklund writes:
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Mar
Lada,
Shortening the thread a bit, citing from your response:
In fact, I think this intended-applied duality could be used for a sound
definition of default contents: defaults would be present in applied but not in
intended config. This would eliminate the need for with-defaults.
That’s indeed
Gert Grammel writes:
>>-Original Message-
>>From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
>>Sent: 11 January 2016 16:36
>>To: Robert Wilton
>>Cc: netmod@ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: [netmod] applied configuration and system-controlled entries
>>
>>
>>> On 11 Jan 20
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>> > On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11/01/2016 14:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> >>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0
19 matches
Mail list logo
