Re: [ipwave] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - Access to IEEE document 802.11-2016 free or not free

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 08/04/2019 à 15:02, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
> Another misconception:
> 
> For all I know, IEEE documents are generally available for free 6 months after the publication.

It's a good rule to remember.  I heard it from several people.

For now, maybe I dont understand, but I try to download IEEE 802.11-2016 
from this URL
https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_11-2016.html

It can be downloaded by two buttons:
- "Access via the IEEE Get Program" - when clicked, it goes to my 
employers' subscription (not everyone is employed by .my employer)

or

- "Access via Subscription" - when clicked it leads to other and other 
pages.

What is your URL that you access without paying?

I will put that URL in the IPv6-over-OCB document.

Alex

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pascal
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: lundi 8 avril 2019 19:10
>> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 -
>> KeyWords BCP 14 text
>>
>>
>> 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