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

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Loa,

thanks for pointing that out.
I'll fix it.

thanks,
Peter

On 09/07/18 16:13 , Loa Andersson wrote:
> 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
>>
>