Subject: [manet] #25 (aodvv2): Meaning of "suppose"

From: "manet issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 21:11:43 -0000

#25: Meaning of "suppose"

 (Thomas Clausen)

 {{{
                 Suppose Route[RteMsg.Address] uses the same metric type as
 the
                 incoming routing information, and the route entry contains
                 Route.SeqNum, Route.Metric, and Route.Broken.  Suppose the
                 incoming ...
 }}}

         This is a protocol specification, "supposing" is not supposed to
         happen - unambiguous instructions that does not require the
         implementer to undertake guesswork is required.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-manet-
  [email-masked]  |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |  Milestone:
Component:  aodvv2       |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG    |   Keywords:
  Document               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/25>
manet <http://tools.ietf.org/manet/>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 01:07:39 +0100

My understanding is that suppose means *IF*. So may be we suggest to
replace suppose to if.

AB

On Thursday, April 3, 2014, manet issue tracker wrote:

>   [email-masked] <javascript:;>  |  [email-masked]<javascript:;>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked] <javascript:;>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:21:34 -0700

Hello folks,

The word only appears twice in the specification.  It won't be hard to 
replace
with an equivalent meaning.

Regards,
Charlie P.

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: John Dowdell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 12:29:53 +0100

Looking at the text where "suppose" is used, it is clear that a worked
example is being constructed. The word "suppose" has been used to
indicate examples for at least the past 30 years in the IETF, so we are not
on new ground here. The fact that a worked example is being constructed
could be highlighted with a new sub header. Some RFCs have whole sections
on examples, but this draft does not, apart from appendix A on the use
of RFC5444. I am content that the text as written is good, but the fact
that this is a worked example and not specification text as such could be
highlighted.

Regards
John

On Saturday, April 12, 2014, Charles E. Perkins <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> [email-masked]