Re: [salud] Review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-09

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Wed, 13 November 2013 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.com>
X-Original-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A7121E8136 for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:25:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.157
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.157 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.442, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NQMC5e-H56wJ for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:25:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls5.std.com [192.74.137.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFAF21E811A for <salud@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:25:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (root@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rADLPEC6018752 for <salud@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:25:16 -0500
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id rADLMesH4896516 for <salud@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:22:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id rADLMedI4896972; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:22:40 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:22:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <201311132122.rADLMedI4896972@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: salud@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <201311111857.rABIvrvX4704666@shell01.TheWorld.com> (worley@ariadne.com)
References: <201311111857.rABIvrvX4704666@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: [salud] Review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-09
X-BeenThere: salud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <salud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud>
List-Post: <mailto:salud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:25:39 -0000

(as an individual)

To make sure people don't overlook it, I want to extract from my LC
comments that there are a couple of places in the URN namespace
registration where I think it would be better to use "MUST" rather
than "must", because we want to make sure that implementers meet those
requirements.

    - 4.  URN Specification for the "alert"  namespace identifier

       Process for identifier resolution:  The process of identifier
	  resolution is the process by which a rendering device chooses a
	  rendering to represent a sequence of "alert" URNs.  The device is
	  allowed great leeway in making this choice, but the process must
    ------------------------------------------------------------------^^^^
	  obey the rules of Section 8.1.  The device is expected to
	  provide

    I think this requirement is sufficiently important we should impress
    implementors that it is a requirement.

	  Future standardization may allow <alert-label>s
	  that are A-labels, and so interpreters of "alert" URNs must
    -------------------------------------------------------------^^^^
	  operate correctly when given such URNs as input.

    Similarly, I think we want to use "MUST" here.

Dale