Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - KeyWords BCP 14 text - xml2rfc

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

it seems RFCs are not in xml format.

So I will do without.  The BCP14 will not be referenced by an xml2rfc 
tag, but by some web automation.

Alex

Le 09/04/2019 à 14:18, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> It's a good idea.
> 
> I need the xml of it.
> 
> Is RFC8505 available as xml?
> 
> I cant find it at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8505
> 
> Le 09/04/2019 à 13:04, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
>> Maybe copy section 2.1 of rfc 8505?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Pascal
>>
>>> Le 9 avr. 2019 à 16:42, Alexandre Petrescu 
>>> <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>>>
>>> In private, a person clarified this to me, and I agree.  The 
>>> Canonical URL points to a document that says at its top that there 
>>> are actually two documents there (RFC 2119 and RFC 8174).  I have to 
>>> scroll down to see the second.  (it is a bit strange to me to see two 
>>> RFCs concatenated, but I guess it is an exception).
>>>
>>> The question left is the following: how to refer to BCP 14 in the xml 
>>> text of draft IP-over-OCB?
>>>
>>> The typical way of using it for referring to RFCs does not work. 
>>> xml2rfc issues errors on this reference:
>>>
>>> <xref target="BCP14"/>
>>> [...]
>>> <?rfc
>>>     include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.BCP.14"
>>> ?>
>>>
>>> Maybe others have already referred to BCP 14 in their Internet Drafts?
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>> Le 08/04/2019 à 13:10, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>>>>> 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
>