Subject: [apps-discuss] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 05:35:47 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-text-markdown/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- 1.1: Who says that there's only a 1-dimensional continuum:-)
And what's on the other end? You don't say.

- The 2119 terms in the para after Figure 1 are bogus, except
for the last SHOULD (on p5).

- Please respond to the secdir review [1] which raised a couple
of questions that deserve answers. (Apologies if I missed your
answer to that.)

   [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05830.html

---

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:03:38 -0700

> And what's on the other end? You don't say.

Changed text:
{{
On the one end is plain text: a linear sequence of characters in some character set (code), possibly interrupted by line breaks, page breaks, or other control characters. (On the other end is binary data, which computer systems store and process with bit-for-bit accuracy.) The repertoire of control characters (a form of in-band signaling) is necessarily limited […]
}}

> for the last SHOULD (on p5).

This was discussed with prior reviewers (I believe Barry Leiba): the sentences were rephrased to have the 2119 terms (SHOULD, etc.) be placed on implementations, rather than what users SHOULD be able to do (i.e., user capabilities).

> of questions that deserve answers. (Apologies if I missed your

secdir review response in reply of that specific e-mail; thanks.

Sean

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 11:20:31 -0400

On one point in particular:

> This was discussed with prior reviewers (I believe Barry Leiba): the
> sentences were rephrased to have the 2119 terms (SHOULD, etc.)
> be placed on implementations, rather than what users SHOULD be
> able to do (i.e., user capabilities).

It was discussed, and I left it for others to comment on.  They have;
Stephen and Ben both agree with me that this is wrong.  My comment
from the AD review, which you did not directly respond to, was this:

---------------
In particular, I think Section 1.2 is entirely unnecessary.  If you
keep it, you'll absolutely have to take the 2119 "SHOULD"s out of it
-- they're inappropriate use of 2119 key words.  Incorrect use: "Users
SHOULD have the option to do <x>."  Correct use: "So that users have
the option to do <x>, implementations SHOULD <do some specified thing
that they might not do without this advice>."
---------------

The flavour of what Section 1.2 says is still very much on the
incorrect side.  I still think the section is entirely unnecessary for
this document (the point here isn't to tell everyone what markdown is,
which they can get from other sources; the point here is to explain
enough to register the media type and to set up the variants
registry).

If you're going to keep this, please remove the 2119 language from
that paragraph and re-word it as text that explains how to get the
best results, and leave it at that.

Barry