Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>

To be clear about one of the points in the review, MAY NOT is not allowed by RFC2119 because it is totally ambiguous in English (since it can mean either "must not" or "might not"). In any case the phrase "MAY or MAY NOT" is not of any normative value. It presumably simply means "MAY" in all cases in this draft.

Regards
   Brian

On 20-Jan-20 20:54, Loa Andersson wrote:
> WG,
> 
> I have reviewed the entire document.
> 
> First, I'm not an IPv6 expert.
> 
> As far as I can see the sued on
> 
> I have not used github, I had a couple of attempts to learn the tools,
> but so far I have failed.
> 
> I have instead done what I use to do, use the review tool with Word.
> 
> Since I sometimes have a pushback on the docx-format I save the result
> as a .txt-file. Drawback is that all comment show up as refrences to a
> list at the end of the document. But you can't get everything.
> 
> 
> /Loa
> 
> PS gives this output for this draft; it is quite a lot and in itself are
> so much that it is worth sending it bck to the authors and asking them
> to fix it. Was the noits tool checked at all before starting the wglc?
> 
> idnits 2.16.02
> 
> /tmp/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt:
> 
>    Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
>    https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>       No issues found here.
> 
>    Checking nits according to 
> https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>       No issues found here.
> 
>    Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the 
> longest one
>       being 6 characters in excess of 72.
> 
>    == There are 5 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 
> addresses
>       in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be 
> changed.
> 
> 
>    Miscellaneous warnings:
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line 
> does not
>       match the current year
> 
>    -- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'MAY NOT' is not
>       defined in RFC 2119.  If it is intended as a requirements 
> expression, it
>       should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119;
>       otherwise it should not be all-uppercase.
> 
>    == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements 
> text,
>       is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used.  Consider 
> using 'MUST
>       NOT' instead (if that is what you mean).
> 
>       Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph:
> 
>       To perform ICMPv6 ping to a target SID an echo request message is
>       generated by the initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP SID in the
>       segment-list of the SRH immediately preceding the target SID. 
> There MAY
>       or MAY NOT be additional segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID.
> 
>    == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements 
> text,
>       is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used.  Consider 
> using 'MUST
>       NOT' instead (if that is what you mean).
> 
>       Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph:
> 
>       To traceroute a target SID a probe message is generated by the
>       initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP SID in the segment-list of 
> the SRH
>       immediately preceding the target SID.  There MAY or MAY NOT be 
> additional
>       segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID.
> 
>    -- The document date (December 18, 2019) is 32 days in the past.  Is this
>       intentional?
> 
> 
>    Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>       (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative 
> references
>       to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
> 
>    == Missing Reference: 'SL' is mentioned on line 190, but not defined
> 
>    -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 191
> 
>    -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 191
> 
>    -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 192
> 
>    == Missing Reference: 'RFC7011' is mentioned on line 230, but not defined
> 
>    == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext' is mentioned on line
>       241, but not defined
> 
>    == Missing Reference: 'RFC792' is mentioned on line 701, but not defined
> 
>    == Missing Reference: 'RFC 8403' is mentioned on line 660, but not 
> defined
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC0792' is defined on line 823, but no explicit
>       reference was found in the text
> 
>    == Unused Reference: 'RFC8403' is defined on line 843, but no explicit
>       reference was found in the text
> 
>    == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
>       draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06
> 
> 
>       Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 5 comments 
> (--).
> 
>       Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information 
> about
>       the items above.
> 
> On 05/12/2019 04:53, Ole Troan wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>    As agreed in the working group session in Singapore, this message starts a new two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing:
>>
>>    Title    : Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)
>>    Author   : Z. Ali, C. Filsfils, S. Matsushima, D. Voyer, M. Chen
>>    Filename : draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-02
>>    Pages    : 23
>>    Date     : 2019-11-20
>>                           
>>      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam/
>>
>> as a Proposed Standard.
>>
>> Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this document should be directed to the mailing list.
>> Editorial suggestions can be sent to the author. This last call will end on the 18th of December 2019.
>>
>> To improve document quality and ensure that bugs are caught as early as possible, we would require at least
>> two reviewers to do a complete review of the document.  Please let the chairs know if you are willing to be a reviewer.
>>
>> The last call will be forwarded to the spring working group, with discussion directed to the ipv6 list.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob & Ole, 6man co-chairs
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 