Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-04 Shepherd review

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

I agree - no reason to delay!

There is one small difference between what is in the document and what 
is in the RFC I pointed to

The document has "...as described in [BCP 14] [RFC2119] [RFC8174]..."

While RFC has "...as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]..."

The reference list in the RFC do not have BCP 14 listed as a reference.
I don't know if this helps.

Acee

BCP 14 is both [RFC2119] and [RFC8174].

/Loa

On 2018-07-09 14:29, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Strange, I'd remove the reference to [BCP14] since RFC 8174 and BCP 14 are the same document. I'm going to request publication as this certainly isn't enough to delay for an update.
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> On 7/9/18, 8:26 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>      Hi Acee,
>      
>      that is exactly what I have in the draft.
>      
>      thanks,
>      Peter
>      
>      On 09/07/18 13:36 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>      > Hi Peter,
>      >
>      > The new boiler plate for requirements language, with references to both RFC 2119 and RFC 8174, is:
>      >
>      >
>      > 1.1.  Requirements Language
>      >
>      >     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.
>      >
>      >
>      > This should resolve the IDNITS warning.
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      > Acee
>      >
>      > On 7/9/18, 5:14 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>      >
>      >      Hi Yingzhen,
>      >
>      >      thanks for your review.
>      >
>      >      As regards to first IDNITS warning, not sure about the first one, I took
>      >      the section "Requirements Language" from RFC8395 as suggested by Loa.
>      >      RFC2119 is only referenced there, that should not be a problem though.
>      >
>      >      I removed the reference to ISO10589.
>      >
>      >      thanks,
>      >      Peter
>      >
>      >      On 09/07/18 00:41 , Yingzhen Qu wrote:
>      >      > Dear authors,
>      >      >
>      >      > I have done shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-lls-id-04 as requested by
>      >      > LSR chairs. I’d like to thank all authors for their contributions on
>      >      > this document, also people who have reviewed this document and provided
>      >      > valuable comments and discussions.
>      >      >
>      >      > The document is well written and ready for publication.
>      >      >
>      >      > IDNITS check found a couple of nits:
>      >      >
>      >      >    Miscellaneous warnings:
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >      >
>      >      >    ** The document contains RFC2119-like boilerplate, but doesn't seem to
>      >      >
>      >      >       mention RFC 2119.  The boilerplate contains a reference [BCP14],
>      >      > but that
>      >      >
>      >      >       reference does not seem to mention RFC 2119 either.
>      >      >
>      >      >    -- The document date (July 1, 2018) is 7 days in the past.  Is this
>      >      >
>      >      >       intentional?
>      >      >
>      >      >    Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>      >      >
>      >      >
>      >      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >      >
>      >      >       (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
>      >      > references
>      >      >
>      >      >       to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>      >      >
>      >      >    == Unused Reference: 'ISO10589' is defined on line 200, but no explicit
>      >      >
>      >      >       reference was found in the text
>      >      >
>      >      >       '[ISO10589] International Organization for Standardization,
>      >      > "Intermed...'
>      >      >
>      >      >    -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP14'
>      >      >
>      >      >    -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589'
>      >      >
>      >      >       Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--).
>      >      >
>      >      > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >      >
>      >      > Thanks,
>      >      >
>      >      > Yingzhen
>      >      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      
>      
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]