IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Unclear text [was IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]]

otroan@employees.org Wed, 18 January 2017 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B731D1296CE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:34:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.264
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=3.599, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IfXLo0XDpieJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [198.137.202.87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3D5D12952C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([65.50.211.142]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2017 13:34:40 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594EDD788D; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:34:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s= selector1; bh=lGeLXmI52mFzYThhK5jFLj67FwQ=; b=lwbshx62Nc2pXqBmkM uKQTW9FVUJ1u/9L8ZwUlOOwzG23reZFJDMG+F26BnqGXPmZIHhl5Qj0Mm6Hybjmo 24UP11x/PzQTMAWSJmDFjkJijEhktxbHuXsE/Ph9W2bg9wO9+TSo+69/Sw5Lx6JW xPrlKJzcClvN/cJK2mNhH8wYY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; q=dns; s= selector1; b=l/+S4nZ6fMpo4CgENUsY/jeUaPqOtdsLnqAO6JMOjcYPQ5o6/r/ eCT+4j/s70jeU2KK6zcumKPv4B5uxNhpzvo7JBWv6AlJLsOrBJj++k3grd5/SqGt LJv47+xt+ND6FJdve5VNCZHZTXQOoTXE9Uz9NRtSUsuhgciEdCzVTw6M=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (unknown [51.175.103.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D2ABD788F; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 05:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C297976AD11F; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:34:37 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Unclear text [was IID length text [was Re: Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-06]]
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <fdd3ccce-21cc-0328-86c2-f5caccb64756@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:34:37 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B14A0A52-128B-41D1-AA82-088B91238634@employees.org>
References: <148406593094.22166.2894840062954191477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr1TrTiPRdyutobmb_77XJ7guNzLrg=H_p7qi4BfQ8V=GA@mail.gmail.com> <m2d1frfm6m.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2Njjd8_Mr+6TRFF6C5pdcX4yFgpFVyEkykDuytu2B8mg@mail.gmail.com> <2A5073777007277764473D78@PSB> <4596c3d4-a337-f08e-7909-f14270b7085f@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau06R3iYRpYLADhvHox4C9qdsJCuxFsJapRhOQcWT4qk_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2weZcoHiBzN94QAQ9WGhWR16PmMMFNg=5YLmr_dhPjjpA@mail.gmail.com> <fcf580ec-3617-ca5f-5337-37acb6e928ba@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr25zNeQGvNJa=WzCjKMd9LaYrSwG=o4tUWn1Zc2ASZjrA@mail.gmail.com> <93700502-5d49-86ce-11b0-ab9904423961@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3wyza0_enWErMhmKKkA1ZOXPv5GG8dMT8HUQZsB5--UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxppi5g_S05-m+B2jKMYePapPM0_wMA4XioYgwipwbKVHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxoY6MGyvzDvUcZ44ka=5RcGwQ16fzRp29445Pa7mQYNHA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau36r2UgXPfdcdEAJ914QqvVvjGJK+=mgE9Y2tpBiDSRig@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3RpUaNKkyTPHPWWew80cyGkiT1p7vYwfejESP4tQw31A@mail.gmail.com> <fdd3ccce-21cc-0328-86c2-f5caccb64756@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/2Mu-mYYm-pyyOCgM3vCiBAyyakU>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:34:42 -0000

Brian,

> ...
>> "Not clear" != "faulty". 
> 
> On the contrary, in a standards document, "Not clear" == "faulty"
> 
> Really. If we publish text that is logically correct but can easily
> be misread (or, of course, text that is ambiguous) then it's faulty text.
> 
> (On a personal note, I have always tried to discipline myself thus:
> if *anybody* misinterprets some text that I wrote, however clear
> I believe it to be, then it's the text that needs fixing, not the
> reader.)

In the parts of a document describing the exact protocol specification and where it affects interoperability I do agree with you.
In other parts of a document I think ambiguity  and leaving leeway up to future readers is perfectly fine.
Being very strict about this, might lead us into being prescriptive where we have no business being prescriptive.

O.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status