Re: [Lager] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-lager-specification-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Asmus Freytag (c)" <[e-mail]>]

On 4/29/2016 3:05 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Asmus,
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016, at 08:58 PM, Asmus Freytag (c) wrote:
>> Following on our discussion by e-mail, here is suggested wording.
>> A./
>> On 4/21/2016 3:24 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> (1) section 5: this says code points MUST be 4 hex digits.
>>> What is s/w supposed to do if it sees only 2 hex digits?
>>> Should it ignore the range or char element or fail to process
>>> the entire LGR document? I think the same issue applies to
>>> other uses of 2119 language as well, (e.g. "MUST be treated as
>>> an error at the end of p19), so I'd recommend you state some
>>> kind of general rule if you can.
>> One would expect the schema validator to catch such issues.
>> It's a simple matter to in to provide explicit language in Section 4 
>> that an LGR that does not conform to the schema in Appendix D is to 
>> be rejected.
> Please say so explicitly.

Latest draft text (in preparation) for Section 4, "LGR Format" is:

"An LGR is expressed as a well-formed XML Document [XML] 
<cid:[e-mail]> that conforms to the schema 
defined in Appendix Appendix D <cid:[e-mail]>."

with the new following the [XML].

I think that ought to be sufficient. While it does not use the word 
"rejected" it makes clear that a non-conforming document does not 
constitute an LGR. Let me know if you think this needs to be even more 
explicit.
>> "An LGR is expressed as a well-formed XML Document <xref 
>> target="XML"/> that conforms to the schema defined in <xref 
>> target="schema"/>."
>> Then we only need to discuss any instances of constraints that are 
>> not enforced/enforceable by schema validation, and we do that, where 
>> those are discussed.
> +1.
> I scanned the rest of your proposed changes and they look reasonable 
> to me. Please post an updated draft ASAP.
Will work with Kim on that.

A./