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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

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
    >      >
    >
    >
    >