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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> On 29 Apr 2016, at 16:20, Asmus Freytag (c) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 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] that conforms to the schema defined in Appendix Appendix D."

This is good.

> 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.

I think Stephen wanted more text about what happens if a document is non conforming. Or at least what are valid handling options.

So yes, I think spelling this out would help.