[kitten] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[kitten] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Joel Halpern
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2018-01-02
IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11
IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
    Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no reference to
    RFCs 2119 or 8174.  Some of the uses of "must" int he document are along
    the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language.  But
    other uses are clearly normative in structure.   It is unclear why the
    reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update.

Nits/editorial comments:


_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Benjamin Kaduk-2
Hi Joel,

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote:

> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2018-01-02
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11
> IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25
>
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues:
>     Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no reference to
>     RFCs 2119 or 8174.  Some of the uses of "must" int he document are along
>     the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language.  But
>     other uses are clearly normative in structure.   It is unclear why the
>     reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update.

Thanks for the review -- I'm a bit surprised that id-nits does not
complain about the omission.

I do not know why the -00 dropped that clause, but it does seem like
the current normal text citing 8174 should be added before
publication.

-Ben

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Joel Halpern
Thanks Ben.  That would be good.
Yours,
Joel

On 1/2/18 8:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

> Hi Joel,
>
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote:
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> Review Date: 2018-01-02
>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11
>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25
>>
>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
>>
>> Major issues: None
>>
>> Minor issues:
>>      Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no reference to
>>      RFCs 2119 or 8174.  Some of the uses of "must" int he document are along
>>      the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language.  But
>>      other uses are clearly normative in structure.   It is unclear why the
>>      reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update.
>
> Thanks for the review -- I'm a bit surprised that id-nits does not
> complain about the omission.
>
> I do not know why the -00 dropped that clause, but it does seem like
> the current normal text citing 8174 should be added before
> publication.
>
> -Ben
>

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Weijun Wang
Hi Joel and Ben

Author here.

I think I've removed the section because in fact none of the keywords appears as capitalized inside the original document. In fact, RFC 8174 has "that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings".

I assume I'll need to go through the document and make some UPPERCASE and some not, depending on the actual meanings.

Or, since this is a bis and changing the cases would be considered an re-intepretation of the whole document (which wasn't my goal), is it more reasonable to keep using RFC 2119 and leave all "must" and "required" in lowercase?

Thanks
Weijun


> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Ben.  That would be good.
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 1/2/18 8:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>>
>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
>>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>>
>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>>
>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>
>>> Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06
>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>> Review Date: 2018-01-02
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11
>>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25
>>>
>>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
>>>
>>> Major issues: None
>>>
>>> Minor issues:
>>>     Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no reference to
>>>     RFCs 2119 or 8174.  Some of the uses of "must" int he document are along
>>>     the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language.  But
>>>     other uses are clearly normative in structure.   It is unclear why the
>>>     reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update.
>> Thanks for the review -- I'm a bit surprised that id-nits does not
>> complain about the omission.
>> I do not know why the -00 dropped that clause, but it does seem like
>> the current normal text citing 8174 should be added before
>> publication.
>> -Ben

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Joel Halpern
Personal opinion:
Given that to my reading "must" is used on the document in both the RFC
2119 sense and in a conventional English language sense, it would be
worth clarifying the intention.  As such, I think it would be better to
use the 8174 reference and go through changing the right ones to upper case.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/2/18 9:40 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:

> Hi Joel and Ben
>
> Author here.
>
> I think I've removed the section because in fact none of the keywords appears as capitalized inside the original document. In fact, RFC 8174 has "that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings".
>
> I assume I'll need to go through the document and make some UPPERCASE and some not, depending on the actual meanings.
>
> Or, since this is a bis and changing the cases would be considered an re-intepretation of the whole document (which wasn't my goal), is it more reasonable to keep using RFC 2119 and leave all "must" and "required" in lowercase?
>
> Thanks
> Weijun
>
>
>> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Ben.  That would be good.
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 1/2/18 8:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>> Hi Joel,
>>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>>>
>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
>>>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>>>
>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>>>
>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>
>>>> Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06
>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>> Review Date: 2018-01-02
>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11
>>>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25
>>>>
>>>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
>>>>
>>>> Major issues: None
>>>>
>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>      Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no reference to
>>>>      RFCs 2119 or 8174.  Some of the uses of "must" int he document are along
>>>>      the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language.  But
>>>>      other uses are clearly normative in structure.   It is unclear why the
>>>>      reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update.
>>> Thanks for the review -- I'm a bit surprised that id-nits does not
>>> complain about the omission.
>>> I do not know why the -00 dropped that clause, but it does seem like
>>> the current normal text citing 8174 should be added before
>>> publication.
>>> -Ben
>
>

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Benjamin Kaduk-2
I am inclined to agree that it is better to change the right ones to
upper case -- we really don't have a good reason to still be
producing documents with this type of ambiguity anymore.

Once that is done we can decide whether the change is
substantial enough to require re-running the last call.

-Ben

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:50:19PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> Personal opinion:
> Given that to my reading "must" is used on the document in both the RFC
> 2119 sense and in a conventional English language sense, it would be
> worth clarifying the intention.  As such, I think it would be better to
> use the 8174 reference and go through changing the right ones to upper case.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 1/2/18 9:40 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
> > Hi Joel and Ben
> >
> > Author here.
> >
> > I think I've removed the section because in fact none of the keywords appears as capitalized inside the original document. In fact, RFC 8174 has "that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings".
> >
> > I assume I'll need to go through the document and make some UPPERCASE and some not, depending on the actual meanings.
> >
> > Or, since this is a bis and changing the cases would be considered an re-intepretation of the whole document (which wasn't my goal), is it more reasonable to keep using RFC 2119 and leave all "must" and "required" in lowercase?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Weijun
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Ben.  That would be good.
> >> Yours,
> >> Joel
> >>
> >> On 1/2/18 8:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> >>> Hi Joel,
> >>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote:
> >>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> >>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
> >>>>
> >>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> >>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> >>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> >>>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> >>>>
> >>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >>>>
> >>>> Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06
> >>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> >>>> Review Date: 2018-01-02
> >>>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11
> >>>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25
> >>>>
> >>>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
> >>>>
> >>>> Major issues: None
> >>>>
> >>>> Minor issues:
> >>>>      Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no reference to
> >>>>      RFCs 2119 or 8174.  Some of the uses of "must" int he document are along
> >>>>      the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language.  But
> >>>>      other uses are clearly normative in structure.   It is unclear why the
> >>>>      reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update.
> >>> Thanks for the review -- I'm a bit surprised that id-nits does not
> >>> complain about the omission.
> >>> I do not know why the -00 dropped that clause, but it does seem like
> >>> the current normal text citing 8174 should be added before
> >>> publication.
> >>> -Ben
> >
> >

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Weijun Wang
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll go through the doc and post another version.

--Weijun

> On Jan 3, 2018, at 11:08 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I am inclined to agree that it is better to change the right ones to
> upper case -- we really don't have a good reason to still be
> producing documents with this type of ambiguity anymore.
>
> Once that is done we can decide whether the change is
> substantial enough to require re-running the last call.
>
> -Ben
>
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:50:19PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Personal opinion:
>> Given that to my reading "must" is used on the document in both the RFC
>> 2119 sense and in a conventional English language sense, it would be
>> worth clarifying the intention.  As such, I think it would be better to
>> use the 8174 reference and go through changing the right ones to upper case.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 1/2/18 9:40 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>> Hi Joel and Ben
>>>
>>> Author here.
>>>
>>> I think I've removed the section because in fact none of the keywords appears as capitalized inside the original document. In fact, RFC 8174 has "that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings".
>>>
>>> I assume I'll need to go through the document and make some UPPERCASE and some not, depending on the actual meanings.
>>>
>>> Or, since this is a bis and changing the cases would be considered an re-intepretation of the whole document (which wasn't my goal), is it more reasonable to keep using RFC 2119 and leave all "must" and "required" in lowercase?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Weijun
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Ben.  That would be good.
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Joel
>>>>
>>>> On 1/2/18 8:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>>>> Hi Joel,
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>>>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
>>>>>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06
>>>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>>>> Review Date: 2018-01-02
>>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11
>>>>>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Major issues: None
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>>>     Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no reference to
>>>>>>     RFCs 2119 or 8174.  Some of the uses of "must" int he document are along
>>>>>>     the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language.  But
>>>>>>     other uses are clearly normative in structure.   It is unclear why the
>>>>>>     reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update.
>>>>> Thanks for the review -- I'm a bit surprised that id-nits does not
>>>>> complain about the omission.
>>>>> I do not know why the -00 dropped that clause, but it does seem like
>>>>> the current normal text citing 8174 should be added before
>>>>> publication.
>>>>> -Ben
>>>
>>>

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[kitten] draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07

Weijun Wang
Hi Ben

I've posted a new draft at

   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/rfc5653bis/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07.html

The only changes since -06 are:

1. Newly added "2. Notational Conventions".

2. Convert some of the keywords to UPPERCASE.

For every occurrence of the keywords, I've marked the UPPERCASE ones red and lowercase ones gray so you can easily spot them. Line numbers are added to the text.

I converted most "must" and "should" to UPPERCASE. There are many "may"s. For those having a subject of "mechanism" or "application", I usually leave them in lowercase. For "implementation", I usually change it to UPPERCASE.

Please take a review. I generated this HTML from the output of "xml2rfc --raw". The "xml2rfc --html" looks too modern for me. If you know a way to generate an HTML like https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5653 which has a plain text layout while containing links I'll be happy to create my page based on it.

Thanks
Weijun
_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07

Weijun Wang
Ping agin. If you don't have any comment, I'll post a -08 I-D draft.

Thanks
Max

> On Jan 4, 2018, at 11:41 PM, Weijun Wang <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ben
>
> I've posted a new draft at
>
>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/rfc5653bis/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07.html
>
> The only changes since -06 are:
>
> 1. Newly added "2. Notational Conventions".
>
> 2. Convert some of the keywords to UPPERCASE.
>
> For every occurrence of the keywords, I've marked the UPPERCASE ones red and lowercase ones gray so you can easily spot them. Line numbers are added to the text.
>
> I converted most "must" and "should" to UPPERCASE. There are many "may"s. For those having a subject of "mechanism" or "application", I usually leave them in lowercase. For "implementation", I usually change it to UPPERCASE.
>
> Please take a review. I generated this HTML from the output of "xml2rfc --raw". The "xml2rfc --html" looks too modern for me. If you know a way to generate an HTML like https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5653 which has a plain text layout while containing links I'll be happy to create my page based on it.
>
> Thanks
> Weijun

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Alissa Cooper
In reply to this post by Weijun Wang
Joel, thanks for your review. I think the WG will need to review the changes to make sure people agree with which keywords become capitalized. I’m holding a DISCUSS about that.

Alissa

> On Jan 2, 2018, at 10:48 PM, Weijun Wang <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. I'll go through the doc and post another version.
>
> --Weijun
>
>> On Jan 3, 2018, at 11:08 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I am inclined to agree that it is better to change the right ones to
>> upper case -- we really don't have a good reason to still be
>> producing documents with this type of ambiguity anymore.
>>
>> Once that is done we can decide whether the change is
>> substantial enough to require re-running the last call.
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:50:19PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>> Personal opinion:
>>> Given that to my reading "must" is used on the document in both the RFC
>>> 2119 sense and in a conventional English language sense, it would be
>>> worth clarifying the intention.  As such, I think it would be better to
>>> use the 8174 reference and go through changing the right ones to upper case.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Joel
>>>
>>> On 1/2/18 9:40 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>> Hi Joel and Ben
>>>>
>>>> Author here.
>>>>
>>>> I think I've removed the section because in fact none of the keywords appears as capitalized inside the original document. In fact, RFC 8174 has "that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings".
>>>>
>>>> I assume I'll need to go through the document and make some UPPERCASE and some not, depending on the actual meanings.
>>>>
>>>> Or, since this is a bis and changing the cases would be considered an re-intepretation of the whole document (which wasn't my goal), is it more reasonable to keep using RFC 2119 and leave all "must" and "required" in lowercase?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Weijun
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Ben.  That would be good.
>>>>> Yours,
>>>>> Joel
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/2/18 8:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Joel,
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>>>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>>>>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
>>>>>>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06
>>>>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>>>>> Review Date: 2018-01-02
>>>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11
>>>>>>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Major issues: None
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>>>>    Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no reference to
>>>>>>>    RFCs 2119 or 8174.  Some of the uses of "must" int he document are along
>>>>>>>    the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language.  But
>>>>>>>    other uses are clearly normative in structure.   It is unclear why the
>>>>>>>    reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update.
>>>>>> Thanks for the review -- I'm a bit surprised that id-nits does not
>>>>>> complain about the omission.
>>>>>> I do not know why the -00 dropped that clause, but it does seem like
>>>>>> the current normal text citing 8174 should be added before
>>>>>> publication.
>>>>>> -Ben
>>>>
>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Weijun Wang
I've uploaded an updated version at

  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/rfc5653bis/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07.html

before submitting a new I-D draft. This page shows all keywords in color (gray for lowercase, red for uppercase), hopefully this will be easy for everyone to review.

Thanks
Weijun

> On Jan 24, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Alissa Cooper <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Joel, thanks for your review. I think the WG will need to review the changes to make sure people agree with which keywords become capitalized. I’m holding a DISCUSS about that.
>
> Alissa
>
>> On Jan 2, 2018, at 10:48 PM, Weijun Wang <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion. I'll go through the doc and post another version.
>>
>> --Weijun
>>
>>> On Jan 3, 2018, at 11:08 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am inclined to agree that it is better to change the right ones to
>>> upper case -- we really don't have a good reason to still be
>>> producing documents with this type of ambiguity anymore.
>>>
>>> Once that is done we can decide whether the change is
>>> substantial enough to require re-running the last call.
>>>
>>> -Ben
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 09:50:19PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>>> Personal opinion:
>>>> Given that to my reading "must" is used on the document in both the RFC
>>>> 2119 sense and in a conventional English language sense, it would be
>>>> worth clarifying the intention.  As such, I think it would be better to
>>>> use the 8174 reference and go through changing the right ones to upper case.
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Joel
>>>>
>>>> On 1/2/18 9:40 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>>> Hi Joel and Ben
>>>>>
>>>>> Author here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I've removed the section because in fact none of the keywords appears as capitalized inside the original document. In fact, RFC 8174 has "that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings".
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume I'll need to go through the document and make some UPPERCASE and some not, depending on the actual meanings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, since this is a bis and changing the cases would be considered an re-intepretation of the whole document (which wasn't my goal), is it more reasonable to keep using RFC 2119 and leave all "must" and "required" in lowercase?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Weijun
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Ben.  That would be good.
>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>> Joel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/2/18 8:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Joel,
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>>>>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>>>>>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>>>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>>>>>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
>>>>>>>> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06
>>>>>>>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>>>>>>>> Review Date: 2018-01-02
>>>>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11
>>>>>>>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Major issues: None
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>>>>>   Although ID-Nits does not complain about it, I can find no reference to
>>>>>>>>   RFCs 2119 or 8174.  Some of the uses of "must" int he document are along
>>>>>>>>   the lines of "inherently follows", which is not normative language.  But
>>>>>>>>   other uses are clearly normative in structure.   It is unclear why the
>>>>>>>>   reference to RFC 2119 was removed as part of this update.
>>>>>>> Thanks for the review -- I'm a bit surprised that id-nits does not
>>>>>>> complain about the omission.
>>>>>>> I do not know why the -00 dropped that clause, but it does seem like
>>>>>>> the current normal text citing 8174 should be added before
>>>>>>> publication.
>>>>>>> -Ben
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gen-art mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Greg Hudson
On 01/23/2018 06:43 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
> I've uploaded an updated version at
>
>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/rfc5653bis/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07.html

This is a great format for reviewing these changes; thanks for
generating it.

Line 416 does not capitalize "optional" in "optional services", but
lines 385 and 391 do.

Lines 422 and 424 should probably capitalize "should".  Line 429 should
probably capitalize "may".

At line 598, I would lean towards leaving "MUST" in lowercase as we are
describing an application requirement, not prescribing one.

Line 1174, I would leave "MAY" in lowercase.

Line 1129, "may" should probably be capitalized.

Line 1369, I would leave "MAY" alone as this seems more descriptive than
prescriptive.

Line 3221's use of "SHOULD" is prescriptive, but there's no other way to
request the default QOP.  So I would leave it lowercase (or change the
wording, but I'm not trying to open any more cans of worms).

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Weijun Wang
Hi Greg

Thank you so much for your careful review. All suggestions accepted.

> On Jan 27, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Greg Hudson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 01/23/2018 06:43 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> I've uploaded an updated version at
>>
>>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/rfc5653bis/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07.html
>
> This is a great format for reviewing these changes; thanks for
> generating it.

Glad you like it. I have to do this to avoid words like the 2nd MAY in the 3rd paragraph on page 45.

>
> Line 416 does not capitalize "optional" in "optional services", but
> lines 385 and 391 do.
>
> Lines 422 and 424 should probably capitalize "should".  Line 429 should
> probably capitalize "may".
>
> At line 598, I would lean towards leaving "MUST" in lowercase as we are
> describing an application requirement, not prescribing one.
>
> Line 1174, I would leave "MAY" in lowercase.
>
> Line 1129, "may" should probably be capitalized.

1179?

Thanks
Weijun

>
> Line 1369, I would leave "MAY" alone as this seems more descriptive than
> prescriptive.
>
> Line 3221's use of "SHOULD" is prescriptive, but there's no other way to
> request the default QOP.  So I would leave it lowercase (or change the
> wording, but I'm not trying to open any more cans of worms).
>

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Greg Hudson
On 01/28/2018 08:41 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:>> Line 1129, "may" should
probably be capitalized.
>
> 1179?

No, that one looks okay.  I think I must have meant line 1229: "The
application may use byte arrays..."

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Weijun Wang


> On Jan 29, 2018, at 2:34 AM, Greg Hudson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 01/28/2018 08:41 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:>> Line 1129, "may" should
> probably be capitalized.
>>
>> 1179?
>
> No, that one looks okay.  I think I must have meant line 1229: "The
> application may use byte arrays..."

I see. Accepted.

Thanks
Weijun

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Weijun Wang
In reply to this post by Greg Hudson
The HTML file updated in place.

Thanks
Weijun

> On Jan 27, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Greg Hudson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 01/23/2018 06:43 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> I've uploaded an updated version at
>>
>>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/rfc5653bis/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07.html
>
> This is a great format for reviewing these changes; thanks for
> generating it.
>
> Line 416 does not capitalize "optional" in "optional services", but
> lines 385 and 391 do.
>
> Lines 422 and 424 should probably capitalize "should".  Line 429 should
> probably capitalize "may".
>
> At line 598, I would lean towards leaving "MUST" in lowercase as we are
> describing an application requirement, not prescribing one.
>
> Line 1174, I would leave "MAY" in lowercase.
>
> Line 1229, "may" should probably be capitalized.
>
> Line 1369, I would leave "MAY" alone as this seems more descriptive than
> prescriptive.
>
> Line 3221's use of "SHOULD" is prescriptive, but there's no other way to
> request the default QOP.  So I would leave it lowercase (or change the
> wording, but I'm not trying to open any more cans of worms).
>

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Weijun Wang
I will submit a new draft tomorrow if there is no other feedback.

Thanks
Weijun

> On Jan 29, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Weijun Wang <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The HTML file updated in place.
>
> Thanks
> Weijun
>
>> On Jan 27, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Greg Hudson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 01/23/2018 06:43 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>> I've uploaded an updated version at
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/rfc5653bis/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07.html
>>
>> This is a great format for reviewing these changes; thanks for
>> generating it.
>>
>> Line 416 does not capitalize "optional" in "optional services", but
>> lines 385 and 391 do.
>>
>> Lines 422 and 424 should probably capitalize "should".  Line 429 should
>> probably capitalize "may".
>>
>> At line 598, I would lean towards leaving "MUST" in lowercase as we are
>> describing an application requirement, not prescribing one.
>>
>> Line 1174, I would leave "MAY" in lowercase.
>>
>> Line 1229, "may" should probably be capitalized.
>>
>> Line 1369, I would leave "MAY" alone as this seems more descriptive than
>> prescriptive.
>>
>> Line 3221's use of "SHOULD" is prescriptive, but there's no other way to
>> request the default QOP.  So I would leave it lowercase (or change the
>> wording, but I'm not trying to open any more cans of worms).
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kitten mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Benjamin Kaduk-2
I am doing a review now.  (Line 413, "SHOULD not" --> "SHOULD NOT"
is all I have so far.)

And I will second Greg's comment about this format being an awesome
way to view these changes -- thank you again for putting them
together!

-Ben

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:17:35PM +0800, Weijun Wang wrote:

> I will submit a new draft tomorrow if there is no other feedback.
>
> Thanks
> Weijun
>
> > On Jan 29, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Weijun Wang <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > The HTML file updated in place.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Weijun
> >
> >> On Jan 27, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Greg Hudson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01/23/2018 06:43 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
> >>> I've uploaded an updated version at
> >>>
> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/rfc5653bis/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07.html
> >>
> >> This is a great format for reviewing these changes; thanks for
> >> generating it.
> >>
> >> Line 416 does not capitalize "optional" in "optional services", but
> >> lines 385 and 391 do.
> >>
> >> Lines 422 and 424 should probably capitalize "should".  Line 429 should
> >> probably capitalize "may".
> >>
> >> At line 598, I would lean towards leaving "MUST" in lowercase as we are
> >> describing an application requirement, not prescribing one.
> >>
> >> Line 1174, I would leave "MAY" in lowercase.
> >>
> >> Line 1229, "may" should probably be capitalized.
> >>
> >> Line 1369, I would leave "MAY" alone as this seems more descriptive than
> >> prescriptive.
> >>
> >> Line 3221's use of "SHOULD" is prescriptive, but there's no other way to
> >> request the default QOP.  So I would leave it lowercase (or change the
> >> wording, but I'm not trying to open any more cans of worms).
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Kitten mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
>

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Benjamin Kaduk-2
And the rest of the review:

Line 2519, I think should --> SHOULD, since elsewhere we use SHOULD
for sending the error token to the peer.

Line 2561, I could go either way on "may" vs. "MAY" -- the argument
for the former would be that it's just stating an attribute of the
operation, and this text is describing something specified elsewhere
and not introducing any restrictions or giving guidance on it.
Similarly for acceptSecContext on line 2597.

Line 2668, SHOULD not --> SHOULD NOT

Line 2858, MAY --> may, since this is just describing what some
implementations could be doing and not exactly granting permission
for it.

I guess for consistency I should say the same thing about line 3049.

Line 3716, MUST not --> MUST NOT


In general, things looked quite good; I do not think I can say thank
you enough for putting this together.

Greg, would you be able to sanity-check the above (and one below)
comment?

Thanks,

Ben


On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 11:35:34AM -0600, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:

> I am doing a review now.  (Line 413, "SHOULD not" --> "SHOULD NOT"
> is all I have so far.)
>
> And I will second Greg's comment about this format being an awesome
> way to view these changes -- thank you again for putting them
> together!
>
> -Ben
>
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:17:35PM +0800, Weijun Wang wrote:
> > I will submit a new draft tomorrow if there is no other feedback.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Weijun
> >
> > > On Jan 29, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Weijun Wang <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The HTML file updated in place.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Weijun
> > >
> > >> On Jan 27, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Greg Hudson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 01/23/2018 06:43 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
> > >>> I've uploaded an updated version at
> > >>>
> > >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/rfc5653bis/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-07.html
> > >>
> > >> This is a great format for reviewing these changes; thanks for
> > >> generating it.
> > >>
> > >> Line 416 does not capitalize "optional" in "optional services", but
> > >> lines 385 and 391 do.
> > >>
> > >> Lines 422 and 424 should probably capitalize "should".  Line 429 should
> > >> probably capitalize "may".
> > >>
> > >> At line 598, I would lean towards leaving "MUST" in lowercase as we are
> > >> describing an application requirement, not prescribing one.
> > >>
> > >> Line 1174, I would leave "MAY" in lowercase.
> > >>
> > >> Line 1229, "may" should probably be capitalized.
> > >>
> > >> Line 1369, I would leave "MAY" alone as this seems more descriptive than
> > >> prescriptive.
> > >>
> > >> Line 3221's use of "SHOULD" is prescriptive, but there's no other way to
> > >> request the default QOP.  So I would leave it lowercase (or change the
> > >> wording, but I'm not trying to open any more cans of worms).
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Kitten mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
> >

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [kitten] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

Greg Hudson
On 02/07/2018 04:32 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:> Line 2519, I think should
--> SHOULD, since elsewhere we use SHOULD
> for sending the error token to the peer.

No opinion.  You could make a case for "that should be sent" being
either descriptive on the token or prescriptive on the application.

> Line 2561, I could go either way on "may" vs. "MAY" -- the argument
> for the former would be that it's just stating an attribute of the
> operation, and this text is describing something specified elsewhere
> and not introducing any restrictions or giving guidance on it.
> Similarly for acceptSecContext on line 2597.

I think that's a MAY.  It seems prescriptive on the method implementation.

> Line 2668, SHOULD not --> SHOULD NOT

Agree.

> Line 2858, MAY --> may, since this is just describing what some
> implementations could be doing and not exactly granting permission
> for it.

Sure, and it's an example.

> I guess for consistency I should say the same thing about line 3049.

I guess "may" here, but no strong opinion.

> Line 3716, MUST not --> MUST NOT

Agree.

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten
12