Re: [Pce] AD review of draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-09

["Andrew Stone (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks again!    -10 is posted. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10



On 2023-05-18, 7:29 PM, "John Scudder" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.

> On May 18, 2023, at 6:51 PM, Andrew Stone (Nokia) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> To the PCE WG:
>
> Any preference regarding changing the capitalization text? i.e from PROTECTION MANADATORY to Protection Mandatory? The intent with capitalization was to try and pop out the values in the description text to make it clear to refer back to the terminology section. If this conflicts with RFC 2119 and/or if the WG doesn't have any preferences, we could certainly change to 'Capitalized First Letter'.


To be clear, in my view, it doesn’t actually conflict with RFC 2119. I don’t think anyone would raise a blocking position based on the use of all caps, but I’m fairly sure there would be some questions raised, the overall gist of which would be to suggest ALL CAPS violates POLA [1]. So even if the decision is “we want to keep it this way” it’s worthwhile to validate that now since it lets us say “the WG considered this question and decided _____”.


(But if this is the biggest thing we have to debate that is a good thing. “The bike shed should be green!” :-)


> Hi John,
>
> Thank you once again for the review comments. Diff attached, please let me know if this looks okay and I'll upload the new version. ACK/Agreed with your comments. Regarding should/may language, I see what you mean on the literal expansion. Your interpretation is correct that it was intended to say "unless not possible and gaps may be filled". I've changed should/might but do not currently think additional text is needed to dive further, and I've included your suggestion text from the related email thread.


Works for me. I suspect the protected/unprotected preferred definitions may come in for some fairly careful scrutiny, so I’m not saying it’s going to be the last word on the subject, but I think the text is solid and supportable.


I say ship it, either with the debated ALL CAPS or not; this can always be revised later as needed based on the outcome of any further discussion. Once you’ve uploaded it, I’ll request IETF Last Call.


—John


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment>