Re: [Lsr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-37: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On September 26, 2019 at 1:37:47 AM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker (
[e-mail]) wrote:

Acee:

Hi!

— Section 2.3 —
In the last two paragraphs of the section, one uses “should” advertise and
the
other uses “SHOULD” advertise. They should either both be BCP 14 key words,
or
both not.


In this case, instead of the change to “SHOULD” (which you made in -38), we
need to go the other way: s/SHOULD/should

This is from my AD review:

- - - -
...
506   If an implementation does not support per level configuration for a
507   parameter modeled with per level configuration, the implementation
508   SHOULD advertise a deviation to announce the non-support of the
509   level-1 and level-2 containers.

511   Finally, if an implementation supports per level configuration but
512   does not support the level-1-2 configuration, it SHOULD also
513   advertise a deviation.

[major] "SHOULD advertise a deviation"  According to rfc7950: "Deviations
MUST never be part of a published standard"; I realize that this document
doesn't include one, but it Normatively recommends their use.
 s/SHOULD/should
- - - -

I missed in -36 the fact that only the first SHOULD was changed.

Thanks!

Alvaro.