Re: [Ecrit] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-18: (with COMMENT)

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

No problem, I will make them “should”.  They do “limit harm” somewhat, but it’s not an issue to remove the 2119 keywords.

> On Mar 2, 2022, at 11:17 AM, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-18: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for the work on this document
> 
> Many thanks to Claudio Allocchio for his ART ART review:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/gTqJGjkpYHmcYZPoX1oTvPqC_Zg/.
> 
> I only have one comment on two uses of SHOULD in the text.
> 
> Francesca
> 
> 1. -----
> 
>   call, it might not be as desirable for other services.  Individual
>   LoST server implementations SHOULD consider the risk of releasing
>   more detail versus the value in doing so.  Generally, supplying more
> 
>   LoST server implementations SHOULD evaluate the particular use cases
>   where this extension is supported, and weigh the risks around its
>   use.
> 
> FP: I believe the use of BCP 14 SHOULD is inappropriate here - these statements
> are not for interoperability, and as 2119 states, BCP 14 terms must only be
> used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior
> which has potential for causing harm. "SHOULD consider" and "SHOULD evaluate"
> fall out of this case. Replacing SHOULD with "should" or "ought to" would be my
> choice.
> 
> 
>