Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

[Weijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel and Ben

Author here.

I think I've removed the section because in fact none of the keywords appears as capitalized inside the original document. In fact, RFC 8174 has "that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings".

I assume I'll need to go through the document and make some UPPERCASE and some not, depending on the actual meanings.

Or, since this is a bis and changing the cases would be considered an re-intepretation of the whole document (which wasn't my goal), is it more reasonable to keep using RFC 2119 and leave all "must" and "required" in lowercase?

Thanks
Weijun


> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Ben.  That would be good.
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 1/2/18 8:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>> 
>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
>>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>> 
>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>> 
>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>> 
>>> Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06
>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>> Review Date: 2018-01-02
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11
>>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25
>>> 
>>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
>>> 
>>> Major issues: None
>>> 
>>> Minor issues:
>>>     Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no reference to
>>>     RFCs 2119 or 8174.  Some of the uses of "must" int he document are along
>>>     the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language.  But
>>>     other uses are clearly normative in structure.   It is unclear why the
>>>     reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update.
>> Thanks for the review -- I'm a bit surprised that id-nits does not
>> complain about the omission.
>> I do not know why the -00 dropped that clause, but it does seem like
>> the current normal text citing 8174 should be added before
>> publication.
>> -Ben