Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-34.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 12:19:57 +0200

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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-34.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20150828
IETF LC End Date: 20150824
IESG Telechat date: 20150903

Summary: Almost Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
 This document uses and even redefines RFC 2119 keywords outside the
*formal* wording of RFC 2119: quoting the RFC 2119 (Abstract):
 "These words are often capitalized."
This formally means a keyword in lower case is still a keyword which
must (MUST :-) be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. IMHO this is
for very old IETF documents: any IETF document published less than 20
years ago uses full upper case keywords when they have to be interpreted
so this statement in the RFC 2119 Abstract is more source of confusion
than clarification.
 If it can be accepted I propose to add an exception for this document
saying that RFC 2119 keywords are capitalized.

Nits/editorial comments:
 - Abstract page 1: every emergency call carry -> carries

 - 1 page 4: every emergency call carry -> carries

 - 2 page 6: the place where I suggest to add that RFC 2119 keywords
  are capitalized and in general keywords are case sensitive.

 - 4.1.4 page 13: an example of a "may" and a "should" which are not
  RFC 2119 keywords but only common English.

 - 4.2.1 page 18: neccessarily -> necessarily

 - 4.3.8 page 27: defined . -> defined.

 - 5.2 page 36 and 5.3 page 38:
  I am afraid the provided-by construct in the example is unbalanced
  (i.e., <provided-by -> <provided-by>)

 - 8 page 62, 9 page 65 (twice): as security and privacy considerations
  can be read independently I suggest to replace the 3 "may"s by
  equivalent wordings ("can", "be allowed to", etc). 

 - 10.1.9 page 70: registation -> registration

 - 10.4 pages 72 - 76 (many):
  The IESG <[email-masked]> -> The IESG <[email-masked]>

 - 10.6 page 82: [email-masked] -> [email-masked]

 - 11 page 83: benefitted -> benefited

Note I didn't check the schemas (even you had the nice attention to
provide them directly, cf appendix B). I reviewed the 33 version
(so at the exception of spelling errors I gave the 33.txt page numbers)
and verified the 33-34 diff.

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:03:58 +0200

Thanks for your review, Francis!

Can the authors check the comments? Thanks.

With regards to RFC 2119 keywords, if I understand the point correctly,
I wouldn’t worry too much about the appearance of lower case keywords,
if they indeed are meant to be just English and not keywords. That is the
current practice since a long time ago. I don’t think we need additional
text in the document to explain this. However, if there is a case where these
really are meant to be keywords, then they should, I think, be in capital
letters.

Thanks,

Jari

On 02 Sep 2015, at 12:19, Francis Dupont <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:40:14 -0700

Hi Francis,

Thanks for your review.  Please see in-line.

>   "These words are often capitalized."

I don't believe the draft redefines 2119 keywords.  The Abstract of 
RFC 2119 is informative, not normative.  I have authored a number of 
RFCs and read far more, and the 2119 boilerplate and use of keywords 
in this document seems to be to be exactly the same as for most 
documents.

>  saying that RFC 2119 keywords are capitalized.

I disagree that lowercase words carry RFC 2119 implications.  I don't 
believe this to be common understanding, and I can tell you that in 
my experience it is not common practice.

That said, I do strive to go to great lengths to avoid even potential 
confusion, so I normally try to avoid using lowercase forms of 2119 
words just on the off chance that some reader somewhere could be 
confused.  With that in mind, I have reviewed all lowercase uses in 
the document of "may", "should", and "must" (there are no lowercase 
uses of "recommended"), and have changed the vast majority of them to 
alternate words.  In cases where the alternate wording was awkward 
and the context more than clear, I left them.

>   - Abstract page 1: every emergency call carry -> carries

I disagree because there is an implied "should" due to the preceding 
"The intent is that..." which makes this subjunctive.

>  - 1 page 4: every emergency call carry -> carries

Same as above.

>    are capitalized and in general keywords are case sensitive.

I don't think this is needed, and in my experience would be highly unusual.

>    RFC 2119 keywords but only common English.

I have changed this use of "may".

>   - 4.2.1 page 18: neccessarily -> necessarily

This was corrected in an earlier edit, but thanks for pointing it out.

>   - 4.3.8 page 27: defined . -> defined.

This was corrected in an earlier edit, but thanks for pointing it out.

>    (i.e., <provided-by -> <provided-by>)

Good catch, thank you.

>    equivalent wordings ("can", "be allowed to", etc).

I reviewed these as part of addressing your first comment, and have 
made some changes.

>  - 10.1.9 page 70: registation -> registration

Good catch, thank you.

>    The IESG <[email-masked]> -> The IESG <[email-masked]>

I agree, done.

>   - 10.6 page 82: [email-masked] -> [email-masked]

Good catch, thank you.

>   - 11 page 83: benefitted -> benefited

Both are shown as correct, but I'm happy to change it.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Some days you feel like Schrodinger's cat.   --M. S. Hutchenreuther

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:43:00 -0700

I've addressed all of Francis' comments (which I appreciate) and also 
reviewed all lowercase instances of the key words.

At 2:03 PM +0200 9/3/15, Jari Arkko wrote:

>  I wouldn't worry too much about the appearance of lower case keywords,
>  current practice since a long time ago. I don't think we need additional
>  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>  Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
>  Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
>  Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
>
>  Attachment converted: TiLand:signature 637.asc (    /    ) (02AA4317)

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
An algorithm must be seen to be believed.  -- Donald Knuth