For the record, we’ve changed this to a MUST in the editor’s copy on GitHub.
Tommy
Hi Lars,
Responses inline.
Hi, thanks for the replies. I'll trim my response to only those items where I still have questions. On Nov 14, 2023, at 19:17, Tommy Pauly < [email protected]> wrote: On Sep 7, 2023, at 3:59 AM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote:
### Section 4.1, paragraph 8
```
* For IETF protocols, the name of a Protocol-specific Property
SHOULD be specified in an IETF document published in the RFC
Series.
```
For IETF protocols, i.e., protocols published on the IETF RFC stream,
those names must IMO be also specified in IETF-stream RFCs. I see no
reason to let other RFC streams make definitions for IETF protocols.
This now reads: "For IETF protocols, the name of a Protocol-specific Property SHOULD be specified in an IETF document published in the RFC Series after IETF review.”
why is this not a MUST, i.e., when would it be appropriate to not specify this in an IETF-stream RFC?
Yeah, I think this could be a MUST.
Brian, Michael, what do you think?
where we have closed this as “overtaken by events” - so I struggle to find the discussion that led to the specific sentence that was added. I believe we just left the SHOULD as it was, and fixed this to refer to "the RFC series after IETF review".
History and github issues aside, I completely agree, a MUST would make more sense here. Let’s do this.
Cheers, Michael
I vaguely recall some discussion of this… but on review, +1 to this being a MUST.
Thanks, cheers,
Brian _______________________________________________Taps mailing list[email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
|
