Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 and call for sheperd

Hi all,

There is no "correct way" as you all have noted. Quickly looking at examples, when we did RFC4139, we did use RFC2119 language but that was important as it was reflecting ITU-T requirements. It's really up to the working group. Reading the draft, I don't see an overuse of it, and the authors seem to have thought carefully on it. So it may help as start doing the protocol work.

So...it really is up to you. If keep, you may want to put a couple of sentences as in RFC4139 (section 2) on the use of RFC2119 language in an informational document.

On another comment - you do need to have only 5 names on the front page. There are many ways to do it (e.g. only have the editor(s) on the front page).

Thanks,
Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 8:40 AM
To: Fatai Zhang; Daniele Ceccarelli; Ramon Casellas; Matt Hartley (mhartley); ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 and call for sheperd

On 05/21/2015 04:57 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> 
>   I would like to share the experience in RFC7062, which also describes
>   a set of requirments in Section 5.
> 
> 
>   If my memory is correct, I as the editor of RFC7062 was asked by Lou
>   (as the CCAMP chair at that time)  to remove RFC2119 language during
>   the LC of this draft.

Sounds right.  In general RFC 2119 conformance language is only
appropriate when discussing things that can impact interoperability,
formats and behavior "on the wire". This is a general rule, and their
are exceptions...

Lou

> 
> 
>   I would also like to hear the confirmation from Adrian and our AD,
>   Deborah.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards
> 
>  
> 
> Fatai
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniele
> Ceccarelli
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2015 4:26 PM
> *To:* Ramon Casellas; Matt Hartley (mhartley); ccamp@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on
> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 and call for sheperd
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Ramon,
> 
>  
> 
> No worries, the last call comments can be solved in two different
> version, we can send the -05 to the IESG (if there are no major changes
> from -03 to -05).
> 
>  
> 
> Yes, I'd like to hear from Adrian on the requirements section.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Daniele
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*Ramon Casellas [mailto:ramon.casellas@cttc.es]
> *Sent:* giovedì 21 maggio 2015 10:20
> *To:* Daniele Ceccarelli; Matt Hartley (mhartley); ccamp@ietf.org
> <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on
> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 and call for sheperd
> 
>  
> 
> El 21/05/2015 a las 9:57, Daniele Ceccarelli escribió:
> 
>     Hi Matt, Ramon,
> 
>      
> 
>     Since I found no clear statements on the usage of RFC2119 language
>     with respect to this situations, I had a look at existing framework
>     and requirement RFCs trying to find a common WoW. My take is:
> 
>      
> 
>     -        Framework is always informational
> 
>     -        Requirements are always informational
> 
>     -        RFC2119 language is not homogeneous. Sometimes capital
>     letters are used and sometimes not.
> 
>      
> 
>     My preference is to use capital letters only when protocol behavior
>     is defined, not when requirements for the design of the protocol are
>     defined (this is in line with e.g. RFC7062 and RFC6163).
> 
>     As I said this is just a preference, but if there is no reasonable
>     objection I would suggest not to use any capital letter in the
>     fwk+req document.
> 
>      
> 
> Hi Daniele, all
> 
>  I was also checking existing RFCs, and IMHO:
> - The document can stay informational, it is mainly fwk+reqs. We seem to
> agree on this.
> - While RFC2119 states "In many standards track documents several words
> are used to signify the requirements in the specification", there seems
> to  be (some?) existing practice on using RFC2119 wording in reqs/info
> documents, including capitalization.
> - Usage of RFC2119 keywords seems scoped to the section on requirements
> in the draft. It could be argued that defining requirements is to some
> extent defining high level protocol behavior :)
> 
> IIRC Adrian authored a significant part of the section, any views?
> 
> That said, -05 needs to be uploaded anyway to reflect the new info-model
> (thanks Jonas!) , it is not game-changing to change to acomodate what
> you suggest. We could remove RFC2119 reference, the boilerplate text and
> re-visit the sections, mainly using lowercase.
> 
> Thanks
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp