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

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Tue, 09 April 2019 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802931207EC; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 06:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 header.b=cv7oryCF; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=cW+rGc6F
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 rK118W1vLdnE; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 06:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9A2C1207E9; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 06:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6090; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1554815039; x=1556024639; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=6fWYsESs0pztLL6+MokGyKgDCp3x6ZXiSw+sBrN5tDo=; b=cv7oryCFco5XXnIs3G3pfEMcnyUFHFQ0r/YtaU3ZsYq12Pwdfv3SfDe7 wpiBHjkXL4noQSOD1ZpdOsORcudYycZqCVqAAnIL5OMRwdi7SFHgzDJ7v yUZhYeLwrQBD5Uu1/q17hgjKBZwQhlLJwFKzT5X7JqeBALk9OBl0/qtzb A=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:sq1IDxFy+zaamXtw5RqezZ1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7IYmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4z1Q3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0pNVcejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+eeb2bzEwEd5efFRk5Hq8d0NSHZW2ag==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ArAADPl6xc/5BdJa1lGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwEBgTwpJwNoVCAECycKhASDRwOEUopWgjIlfog6jWCBLoEkA1QOAQEjCYRAAheFSSI0CQ0BAQMBAQkBAgECbRwMQgEOAYR5AQQBIxEMAQE3AQQLAgEIGgIfBwICAh8RFRACBA4FgyIBgV0DDQcBAQIMonQCihRxgS+CeQEBBYUDDQuCDAiBCyUBi0YXgUA/gREnDBOCFzU+ghpHAQECAYF1gnMxgiaNFpg9NgkCiAKIPINEGoIGXYkciGCDVoRTiUyBRIwXAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFPODWBIXAVZQGCQQmCATdtAQ0BgjyFFIU/cgEBgSaBUoxTAYEfAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,329,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="257325848"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 09 Apr 2019 13:03:58 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x39D3wqP008806 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:03:58 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 08:03:57 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 08:03:57 -0500
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 08:03:57 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=6fWYsESs0pztLL6+MokGyKgDCp3x6ZXiSw+sBrN5tDo=; b=cW+rGc6FXXIwyjVsUijUmFjw3TZ9tCZxk2DMG/MPjb2zG0oOzxw+geM5E5341bp2woWL9Q9cq0WCNbukIHfHrwm6vAWJ1fzx9IqPLUweveqCdYi2oiPh2sjIcrx5uTVzhgQT7WYQPGltL6B+NaYzXkcBqpxflt25Qhbp0z2jEI4=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.250.159) by MN2PR11MB3967.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.180.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1771.15; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:03:55 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8cde:9e01:ad20:d10e]) by MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8cde:9e01:ad20:d10e%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1771.021; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:03:55 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
CC: "int-dir@ietf.org" <int-dir@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - KeyWords BCP 14 text - xml2rfc
Thread-Index: AQHU7rA5xKnsLwpTlU+YTVU1COTT1aYzqp3UgAAUxYCAAAUugIAAB281
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 13:03:55 +0000
Message-ID: <034EEEF7-7CCB-4944-A28E-9F87A2073210@cisco.com>
References: <155169869045.5118.3508360720339540639@ietfa.amsl.com> <31dd2bba-a7f2-e72d-4ef3-6ad4094f46a6@gmail.com> <f5a31a58-1dc8-900e-6793-02bfb53b7391@gmail.com> <3FF1A4B6-C4B4-4E74-800C-25DBF6A04682@cisco.com> <65c7b98f-c927-d50f-8806-5e631d9b6a07@gmail.com>, <81b3973f-65c0-dcbb-0bb6-4ebe5d7c15fd@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <81b3973f-65c0-dcbb-0bb6-4ebe5d7c15fd@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pthubert@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [101.230.0.195]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7e057aba-93d2-4dbe-9656-08d6bcebd27c
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB3967;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3967:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 6
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3967105B8A0AF7A9881A6683D82D0@MN2PR11MB3967.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 000227DA0C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(346002)(366004)(136003)(189003)(199004)(36756003)(229853002)(2906002)(5660300002)(4326008)(97736004)(54906003)(66574012)(82746002)(7736002)(68736007)(316002)(66066001)(53936002)(6116002)(6512007)(6246003)(3846002)(6916009)(6306002)(8936002)(86362001)(99286004)(76176011)(8676002)(93886005)(106356001)(2616005)(81156014)(6486002)(26005)(81166006)(446003)(6506007)(11346002)(33656002)(186003)(14444005)(83716004)(305945005)(71190400001)(256004)(71200400001)(486006)(478600001)(476003)(25786009)(102836004)(105586002)(14454004)(6436002)(966005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3967; H:MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 2ggedI77TPxpekog2fynZSp/IDutx0LWPL55h0Q2PFYmRdox/yAleTUcn7y8LyZM/VJDkQleCRHiMSoRk/EuOMxS3LiBjXnOmQ5uvj2zB3c+AJwqwkMrTOp4b4WmrfqPR534+7EJ1p1iRKvjtrM33e+BCOBGG7qEvrOgDBsm/+N5fOXyvvqz4fnkoGEqVdjhk56TKdTG4xZL7HgwXdsoowpYJpdBHnb2FM7HEDa+96hNW03Dd6TBWy1b2VikmqE6SJTEIA3xH+bc5pytXNOBRaMgBckzUaLrhbnbUBpJoflso3E73nhir88umOnixg1G4FiN9M/3dhBqxMpMtOu74MhOEPxd5Rbk71DR7Pbt5POQlqxBGJOpMzCVRJUnV+Rd6ullOv1TfXuv1BOepipA7ZiyaeSwg+zB6dAeEdJ6cNA=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7e057aba-93d2-4dbe-9656-08d6bcebd27c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Apr 2019 13:03:55.3159 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3967
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.14, xch-rcd-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/sfbyz4J68_knyql54p_g1J5UeFU>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-34 - KeyWords BCP 14 text - xml2rfc
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 13:04:03 -0000

Just pick it from the last draft it didn’t change in a while....


Regards,

Pascal

> Le 9 avr. 2019 à 20:37, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> it seems RFCs are not in xml format.
> 
> So I will do without.  The BCP14 will not be referenced by an xml2rfc tag, but by some web automation.
> 
> Alex
> 
>> Le 09/04/2019 à 14:18, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>> 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 <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> 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