Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-01

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Donald, and thanks for the review.  I agree with your two-comma
suggestion, and I'll put that in my working copy.

Barry

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Document
> editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last
> call comments.
>
> This document merely clarifies the significance of capitalization of the
> implementation requirement key words of RFC 2119. It's Security
> Considerations section correctly states that there are none.
>
> It is Ready except for a trivial editorial nit. In the sentence
>
>    In many IETF documents several words are used to signify the
>    requirements in the specification, when they are in all capitals as
>    shown below.
>
> I believe there should either be no comma or it should be re-ordered so
> there are two commas as below.
>
>    In many IETF documents several words, when they are in all
>    capitals as shown below, are used to signify the requirements
>    in the specification.
>
> The automatic nits checker has two incorrect complaints that should be
> ignored:
>
> that "NOT RECOMMENDED" occurs in the document but not in the documents RFC
> 2119 key words list, which is just because the document is talking about
> "NOT RECOMMENDED", and
> in contradiction, that the document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords but
> has RFC 2119 boilerplate, which is just because the document is talking
> about such boilerplate.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  [e-mail]