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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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