Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - KeyWords BCP 14 text

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Another misconception:

For all I know, IEEE documents are generally available for free 6 months after the publication.

Cheers,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
> Sent: lundi 8 avril 2019 19:10
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 -
> KeyWords BCP 14 text
> 
> 
> Le 04/03/2019 à 12:24, Pascal Thubert a écrit :
> > Reviewer: Pascal Thubert
> > Review result: Not Ready
> >
> [...]
> > BCP 14 text:
> >
> > Suggest to use this text:
> > “
> >     The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
> NOT",
> >     "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
> "MAY", and
> >     "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
> >     https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14 https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14
> >     [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they
> >     appear in all capitals, as shown here.
> >
> > “
> 
> I will add it, thank you.  I want to be up to date with most recent specs.
> 
> But here are my worries about it for what is worth:
> 
> - I dont understand though why the need to say 'capitals' when in CAPITALS is
> it written.
> 
> - I thought that a BCP document was just one RFC.  Here we seem to be talking
> about BCP-14 being both RFC2119 and RFC8174.
> 
> A google search on BCP-14 hits first on RFC 2119, and a document called
> 'bcp14' (not on RFC8174). https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14
> 
> The second hit is a page at RFC Editor which points to a "Canonical URL"
> towards https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14.txt which does not talk about
> RFC8174 either.
> 
> It then points to https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/ref-bcp14.txt
> That ref points back to a web page telling the "Canonical URL".
> 
> - finally, the text ends with 'as shown here', which invites my reading to think
> that what follows needs to be understood with these capitals.
> And what follows is the definition of terms like "IP-OBU", etc.  That is
> worrisome.  You can understand the worry if you read it as a whole:
> >    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
> >    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
> "MAY", and
> >    "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
> >    14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
> >    capitals, as shown here.
> >
> >    IP-OBU (Internet Protocol On-Board Unit): an IP-OBU is a computer
> >    situated in a vehicle such as an automobile, bicycle, or similar.  It
> >    has at least one IP interface that runs in mode OCB of 802.11, and
> >    that has an "OBU" transceiver.  See the definition of the term "OBU"
> >    in section Appendix I.
> 
> The dot after 'here' is very important, but so small.  A quick or low-sighted
> reader may see it as double dots.  And that would be a problem, because the
> "IP-OBU" term definition is not suject to that capitalization.
> 
> Alex