Re: [Teas] [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On March 3, 2021 at 2:47:38 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
> > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody

Les:

Hi!

...
> > (1) Is it wise to use normative keywords MUST and SHOULD in the
> > appendix? The text is from section 3.1 but can it be reworded in the
> > appendix? Also wondering if other changes (IANA, nits) could be listed
> > or we could call it "major change" :)
>
> [Les:] I personally do not have an issue using the normative keywords in
> the Appendix. Not doing so I think might trigger someone to ask if there is
> some inconsistency between the Appendix text and the text in the body of the
> draft. 😊
>
> If you know of some prohibition against using such keywords in an Appendix
> please provide the reference.

There's no specific prohibition against it -- in fact, sometimes an
appendix can be normative so it is completely appropriate to have
normative language.

In this case, the appendix is informative and the normative text is
only reflecting what the main body of the draft says (which is where
the specification is).  To avoid confusion about which piece of text
is normative, and keep consistency, I would recommend using quotes in
the appendix:

OLD>
   1.  The Router ID SHOULD be identical to the value advertised in the
   Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV (134) if available.

NEW>
   1.  The "Router ID SHOULD be identical" to the value advertised in the
   Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV (134) if available (Section 3.1).


Alvaro.