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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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