Re: [tcpm] 793bis: references to 2119 keywords

[Theodore V Faber <[e-mail]>]

That seems like a sound idea to me.

I suggest using some abbreviation other than "ID" to avoid confusion with "I-D" (Internet-Draft).  "Marker", maybe?

--
Ted Faber <[e-mail]>
Senior Engineering Specialist
Computer Systems Research Department
The Aerospace Corporation
310-336-7373


________________________________________
From: tcpm <[e-mail]> on behalf of Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 08:22
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [tcpm] 793bis: references to 2119 keywords

In the 793bis draft, some time ago we had included the appendix from 1122 that has a table of all the places where 2119 keywords are used (MUST/SHOULD/MAY/etc).

I'm now updating that so that it:
(1) points to the right section numbers or places within the current document rather than 1122
(2) contains references for requirements that came from other documents than 1122

There are a few challenges, and I have a proposal.

Instead of carrying forth exactly the prior format where the table looked like:

                                                  |        | | | |S| |
                                                  |        | | | |H| |F
                                                  |        | | | |O|M|o
                                                  |        | |S| |U|U|o
                                                  |        | |H| |L|S|t
                                                  |        |M|O| |D|T|n
                                                  |        |U|U|M| | |o
                                                  |        |S|L|A|N|N|t
                                                  |RFC1122 |T|D|Y|O|O|t
 FEATURE                                          |SECTION | | | |T|T|e
 -------------------------------------------------|--------|-|-|-|-|-|--
 Closing Connections                              |        | | | | | |
   Half-duplex close connections                  |4.2.2.13| | |x| | |



I'm suggesting to replace the "RFC1122 SECTION" column with one called something like "ID", and then adding an ID tag into the sentence where the requirement occurs, which winds up looking like:

                                                  |        | | | |S| |
                                                  |        | | | |H| |F
                                                  |        | | | |O|M|o
                                                  |        | |S| |U|U|o
                                                  |        | |H| |L|S|t
                                                  |        |M|O| |D|T|n
                                                  |        |U|U|M| | |o
                                                  |        |S|L|A|N|N|t
                                                  |        |T|D|Y|O|O|t
 FEATURE                                          |   ID   | | | |T|T|e
 -------------------------------------------------|--------|-|-|-|-|-|--
 Closing Connections                              |        | | | | | |
   Half-duplex close connections                  | MAY-1  | | |x| | |




And then searching the document for "MAY-1", you would find the sentence in section 3.5.1:

   A host MAY implement a "half-duplex" TCP close sequence, so that an
   application that has called CLOSE cannot continue to read data from
   the connection (MAY-1).

Subsequent statements would be labelled "MAY-2", "MAY-3", etc.

Before I do this for a large number of these, I thought it would be good to solicit feedback from the group. Does this seem like a good idea? Is it valuable? Given that XML2RFC "artwork" can't contain "xref" tags, it seems easier and less error prone than maintaining section number references in that table.