Re: [mile] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-mile-rfc5070-bis-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 24/06/16 19:22, Roman D. Danyliw wrote:
>> > TBH, I wonder if the right thing here is to say that documents
>> > with ambiguous confidence elements MUST be treated as if the
>> > confidence element were omitted.
>> > 
>> > Would that work?
> Definitely.  Would this last sentence address your concern:
> 
> "... While the sender of the 
> document may explicitly convey confidence in the data in a granular
> way using the Confidence class, the recipient is free to ignore or
> refine this information to make its own assessment.  
> [start new text]
> Ambiguous Confidence elements in a document MUST be ignored by the recipient.
> "
> 
> It's a restatement of your suggestion to match the existing style of the text.

That'd work for me. I'd word it more like:

"Ambiguous Confidence elements (where it is unclear to which of a set
of other elements the Confidence element relates) in a document MUST be
ignored by the recipient."

I'd still clear on yours, but saying what we mean by ambiguous would I
think be better. I'm fine if you want to use more words to be even more
precise about that.

Cheers,
S.