On 15/01/2016 20:50, Gert Grammel wrote:
For 2B, I agree changing MAY to SHOULD but we should broaden this to
apply to synchronous servers as well. Even though a config edit
operation is synchronous it could still fail to be applied for some
leaves, and hence the intended and applied leaves c
> On Jan 15, 2016:5:40 PM, at 5:40 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
> [As a contributor]
>
>
> And just when I thought we were done with this draft ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> I think that the text for 2A would be more clear using MUST rather than
>>> may (in the sense that a compliant server must
[As a contributor]
And just when I thought we were done with this draft ;)
>>I think that the text for 2A would be more clear using MUST rather than
>>may (in the sense that a compliant server must choose one of the three
>>options listed).
>>
>>Before:
>>
>>A. A server may supp
See below ..
On 2016-15-01 18:24, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton"
wrote:
>Hi Kent,
>
>On 11/01/2016 20:59, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> Hi Kent,
>
> On 11/01/2016 20:59, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>> 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 "MUS
Hi Kent,
On 11/01/2016 20:59, Kent Watsen wrote:
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", "RE
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
> 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
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
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", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>
Hi Kent,
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", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 01:00:34AM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> In addition to the title update, I also updated the abstract/introduction and
> fixed a couple editorial items.
>
I do not like the changes of the abstract/introduction, in particular
the phrase "requirements for the applied config
In addition to the title update, I also updated the abstract/introduction and
fixed a couple editorial items.
Kent
On 1/8/16, 7:58 PM, "netmod on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org"
wrote:
>
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : Terminology and Requirements for Enhanced Handling of
Operational State
Authors :
15 matches
Mail list logo
