Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06: (with DISCUSS)
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 17 May 2017 10:06 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 D8C77129B7A; Wed, 17 May 2017 03:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 JZPTgcDc0YR6; Wed, 17 May 2017 03:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDC3B129B3A; Wed, 17 May 2017 03:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10015; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495015274; x=1496224874; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=r2d1D+5jsKx1RaB4WHEdO6sHeUpwvoi991ElDfq7sRU=; b=j5vQLmMNEfWmswFuB17+Rne+zMTRN+e5x5D8irnCs7oZBFlUw4LE5Swy sYFaVsPd6bGYUEeSSBPjvCIIoZ7ZXm5HupTqgENad8W6pDTqMobMCC0tP KEv/pNZwBwa1/yIl3svzb94EWATFjmjRF5NdtmXEq3Yv+0B0a08KMhmwv A=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.38,353,1491264000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="28436049"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 May 2017 10:01:13 +0000
Received: from [10.82.217.158] (rtp-vpn3-412.cisco.com [10.82.217.158]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4HA1CKl015865; Wed, 17 May 2017 10:01:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06: (with DISCUSS)
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org>, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <149427694020.22664.10344820301651708437.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5DE424DC-F18D-417B-B547-62F49A04B6C1@gmail.com> <2E927CD3-327A-4160-88D9-B901D9D532EA@cisco.com> <A89C9702-E841-482F-8248-87AC710202F4@gmail.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <7726dc86-daf7-6fa1-e956-9238fee39226@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 06:01:11 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A89C9702-E841-482F-8248-87AC710202F4@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------ECF233A514031C16C2C90144"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rntCy0FXE3ZNHOE43t7JlKrr_vo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 17 May 2017 10:06:41 -0000
Dear all, I've seen the resolution on Alvara's DISCUSS. Looking at https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-07.txt, there are so MUST, SHOULD, MAY modified to their lower case respective names that I wonder... Instead of going this easier path, shouldn't we have use the RFC 2119 keywords all over the place and create a clear spec according to today's "standard", read RFC 2119 keywords. Btw draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis doesn't use any RFC2119 keywords (which is weird these days) and doesn't contain a note such as: Note: This document is an update to [RFC1981] that was published prior to [RFC2119] being published. Consequently while it does use "should/must" style language in upper and lower case, the document does not cite the RFC2119 definitions. This update does not change that. At least, we should target consistency. Regards, Benoit > Alvaro, > > Thanks! > > Bob > > >> On May 10, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks Bob, that works for me. >> >> Alvaro. >> >> On 5/9/17, 10:37 AM, "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Alvaro, >> >> Based on your Discuss, I am planning to add: >> >> Note: This document is an update to [RFC1981] that was published >> prior to [RFC2119] being published. Consequently while it does use >> "should/must" style language in upper and lower case, the document >> does not cite the RFC2119 definitions. This update does not change >> that. >> >> To the Introduction of this document. It should appear in the next published version of this draft. >> >> Thanks, >> Bob >> >> >> >>> On May 8, 2017, at 11:55 PM, Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06: Discuss >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> DISCUSS: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> I'm putting in this point as a DISCUSS because I think that the current >>> text may be confusing and vague. >>> >>> As others have pointed out, this document includes rfc2119-like language, >>> both capitalized and not. I realize that rfc1981 was published before >>> rfc2119 and that no expectation on the language existed then. However, >>> we're at a point in time where not only rfc2119 is in place, but >>> draft-leiba-rfc2119-update (which clarifies that only uppercase language >>> has special meaning) is in AUTH48. I think that this leads to the >>> possibility that the average reader may interpret the requirements in >>> this document in a way that it wasn't intended. >>> >>> While I would prefer that this document be consistent (and either use >>> capitalized rfc2119 language as intended, OR, not used it at all), I >>> understand the intent of not changing some of the original text. I would >>> be happy with a note like this one: "Note: This document is an update to >>> RFC1981 that was published prior to RFC2119 being published. >>> Consequently while it does use "should/must" style language in upper and >>> lower case, the document does not cite the RFC2119 definitions. This >>> update does not change that." [I borrowed this text from the the INTDIR >>> review thread. [1]] >>> >>> I find that including a note in the Shepherd's write-up is not enough >>> because the average reader/implementer will not consult it. >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/bVH_0ydVdGssOiszJKhQXLYPuXY/?qid=4000f8a954b226266f429842911101f5 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>
- Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc198… Alvaro Retana
- Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rf… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rf… Bob Hinden
- Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rf… Bob Hinden
- Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rf… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rf… Bob Hinden
- Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rf… Benoit Claise