[i2rs] Mail regarding draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 31 December 2015 23:57 UTC

From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements@ietf.org, "'Eric Voit (evoit)'" <evoit@cisco.com>, "'Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)'" <cpignata@cisco.com>, "'Alexander Clemm (alex)'" <alex@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:57:21 -0500
Message-ID: <00a001d14426$fe6c9530$fb45bf90$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A1_01D143FD.15999A70"
Thread-Index: AdFEJo4Wp/sC8GWrSRuSMlPymJGSJA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/OlzoBiSKj0NRoI-D86wCgaJKfxY>
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org
Subject: [i2rs] Mail regarding draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements
Precedence: list

Eric, Carlos and Alex: 

 

Could you change the following once you get back from holiday on 1/4/2016 to
address the draft nits: 

 

1)  Normative references: Change i2rs-architecture and I2RS-traceability to
normative, and add RFC2119 as normative.  

2)  Add a security Considerations section - with "no security considerations

3)  Add a IANA considerations section with "no IANA considerations"

 

 

NitS: 



  ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section.

 

  ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See
Section

     2.2 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case

     when there are no actions for IANA.)

 

  ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the

     recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119

     keywords. 

 

     RFC 2119 keyword, line 537: '...ed access to subtree or node SHOULD
be...'

 

Thank you, 

 

Sue Hares

Shepherd of Document hat

[i2rs] Mail regarding draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-req… Susan Hares