[apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-04

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Dear colleagues,

As usual, a day late and a dollar short, but I have reviewed
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-04.  I support its publication.  I have
some items that might conceivably be addressed, but I don't think any
of them is a show-stopper.  I sent nits I observed directly to the WG
draft editors.

First, in section 1.1, we have this:


   The definitions here should be used by IETF standards that want to
   use them.  IETF standards that explicitly want to create different
   definitions for the terms defined here can do so, but the terms
   here should be considered the default for IETF standards after the
   time of publication of this document.  

Obviously, the draft can't constrain what other documents might do.
But it would be nice to encourage other documents, if they're going to
come up with different definitions, to use different words.  If
someone decided to re-define SHOULD at the beginning of their
standards document, we would quite justifiably complain, & I think the
same goes here.  I suggest the following additional sentence: 

    IETF standards that want different definitions are encouraged, for
    clarity's sake, to find terms different to the ones defined here.


Second, why isn't "LDH label" in section 7 instead of section 6,
especially since LDH is also mentioned at the beginning of section 7?

The last sentence of the first paragraph of section 8 says, "It is
likely that additional terms will be added as this document matures."
Presumably, if the draft is published that sentence should be removed.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]