From nobody Wed Apr 1 00:38:46 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627181A89B5 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 00:38:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.61 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fGRhyTi2hI0C for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 00:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ENFICSETS1.metaswitch.com (enficsets1.metaswitch.com [192.91.191.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52A6D1A89AE for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 00:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ENFICSCAS1.datcon.co.uk (172.18.10.61) by ENFICSETS1.metaswitch.com (172.18.4.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:38:41 +0100 Received: from ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::d5d5:c683:a3be:3a19]) by ENFICSCAS1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::3d12:12a9:26af:c7%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:38:40 +0100 From: Jonathan Hardwick To: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Routing directorate expertise in TRILL, LISP, L2TPEXT Thread-Index: AdBsTt30NsS7SDiORpeaC5Xcb8gvsQ== Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 07:38:38 +0000 Message-ID: <09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBA012972F352@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [2001:0:c05b:bffa:3007:1213:a971:68c5] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBA012972F352ENFICSMBX1dat_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Jon Hudson Subject: [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate expertise in TRILL, LISP, L2TPEXT X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 07:38:44 -0000 --_000_09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBA012972F352ENFICSMBX1dat_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As of IETF 92, the TRILL, LISP and L2TPEXT working groups have transferred = to the routing area. This means that routing directorate review requests a= re now coming in for drafts in those WGs. I would like to identify which people in the routing directorate have any e= xperience in these WGs and might be able to review their drafts. You don't= need to be an expert - some passing knowledge is enough for the type of re= view that we do in the directorate. Please let me know by reply, and ideally please also update the wiki. (At the time of writing, according to the wiki, we have several people with= knowledge of LISP, but the only people with knowledge or TRILL and L2TPEXT= also happen to be co-chairs of those WGs.) Many thanks Jon --_000_09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBA012972F352ENFICSMBX1dat_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As of IETF 92, the TRILL, LISP and L2TPEXT working g= roups have transferred to the routing area.  This means that routing d= irectorate review requests are now coming in for drafts in those WGs.<= /o:p>

 

I would like to identify which people in the routing= directorate have any experience in these WGs and might be able to review t= heir drafts.  You don’t need to be an expert – some passin= g knowledge is enough for the type of review that we do in the directorate.

 

Please let me know by reply, and ideally please also= update the wiki.

 

(At the time of writing, according to the wiki, we h= ave several people with knowledge of LISP, but the only people with knowled= ge or TRILL and L2TPEXT also happen to be co-chairs of those WGs.)

 

Many thanks

Jon

 

--_000_09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBA012972F352ENFICSMBX1dat_-- From nobody Fri Apr 3 02:06:43 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144301A1B21 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 02:06:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.711 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xbv9knBsiswL for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 02:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ENFICSETS1.metaswitch.com (enficsets1.metaswitch.com [192.91.191.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F5121A1B00 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 02:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk (172.18.74.36) by ENFICSETS1.metaswitch.com (172.18.4.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 10:06:40 +0100 Received: from ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::d5d5:c683:a3be:3a19]) by ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::b06d:4d13:5f63:3715%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 10:06:38 +0100 From: Jonathan Hardwick To: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Recent routing directorate activity Thread-Index: AdBt7X14rttOuKwgTru2bbrppNSPoQ== Importance: low X-Priority: 5 Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 09:06:37 +0000 Message-ID: <09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBA0129731AE0@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [2001:0:c05b:bffa:3007:1213:a971:68c5] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBA0129731AE0ENFICSMBX1dat_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [RTG-DIR] Recent routing directorate activity X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 09:06:42 -0000 --_000_09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBA0129731AE0ENFICSMBX1dat_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For your information, the routing directorate has been requested to review = the following drafts since IETF 92. Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc Reason: WG last call Reviewer: Danny McPherson Deadline: none given Document: draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis Reason: pre-IETF last call Reviewer: nobody as yet Deadline: none given Cheers Jon --_000_09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBA0129731AE0ENFICSMBX1dat_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

For your information, the routing directorate has be= en requested to review the following drafts since IETF 92.

 

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc=

Reason: WG last call

Reviewer: Danny McPherson

Deadline: none given

 

Document: draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis

Reason: pre-IETF last call

Reviewer: nobody as yet

Deadline: none given

 

Cheers

Jon

 

--_000_09CE6C3BE5E1EA40B987BF5F25D8DDBA0129731AE0ENFICSMBX1dat_-- From nobody Fri Apr 10 16:06:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B5E1B2E3A for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:06:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cprNfCxLbS3I for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server.riw.us (server.riw.us [162.144.32.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B269E1B2E35 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 162-229-180-77.lightspeed.rlghnc.sbcglobal.net ([162.229.180.77]:53530 helo=RussPC) by server.riw.us with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1Ygi0N-0005AH-5o; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 23:06:31 +0000 From: "Russ White" To: Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 19:06:25 -0400 Message-ID: <034901d073e2$f8a3c570$e9eb5050$@riw.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdBz4qBogUU6Ns00QuyfN88manHdxA== Content-Language: en-us X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.riw.us X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - riw.us X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.riw.us: authenticated_id: russw@riw.us X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: [RTG-DIR] draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis.all@tools.ietf.org; trill@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 23:06:44 -0000 Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. = The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related = drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and = sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide = assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing = Directorate, please see = =E2=80=8Bhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it = would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF = Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through = discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis-04 Reviewer: Russ White Review Date: 10 April 2015 Intended Status: Proposed Standard Summary:=20 This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that = should be considered prior to publication-- (I found one very minor nit, = see below).=20 Comments: This document is difficult to understand, as it modifies several other = documents that must be examined in parallel to understand the = modifications being made. However, given that the TRILL documents are = complex on their own, and this document "sweeps up" various changes = across multiple documents while replacing another document, it is = readable and serves the purpose for which it is intended well. Overall, = this document is complex but readable; someone who understands a TRILL = implementation should find it fairly navigable.=20 I did check the IANA registries, references, and modifications proposed = in this document; I could find no problems with the references, = modifications, or registry information as described in the document. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: No minor issues found. Nits: 10. TRILL Header Update (New) The TRILL header has been updated from its original specification in [RFC6325] by [RFC7455] and [RFC7179] and is further updated by this document. The TRILL header is now as show in the figure below which is followed by references for all of the fields. show/shown =3D=3D Russ From nobody Wed Apr 22 03:44:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BCC1B3401 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 03:44:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NH8uzDvRIoAa for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 03:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0772.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::772]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E99D01B33FE for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 03:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DB3PR03MB0777.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.161.54.27) by DB3PR03MB009.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.136.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.136.25; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:43:45 +0000 Received: from DB3PR03MB0780.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.161.55.12) by DB3PR03MB0777.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.161.54.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.136.25; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:43:44 +0000 Received: from DB3PR03MB0780.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([25.161.55.12]) by DB3PR03MB0780.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([25.161.55.12]) with mapi id 15.01.0148.008; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:43:44 +0000 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Drafts without MUST requirements - advice needed Thread-Index: AQHQfOho2on/RpWF0EiPoi497CcDCQ== Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:43:43 +0000 Message-ID: <1429699418060.19335@ecitele.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; x-originating-ip: [5.153.9.203] x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB3PR03MB0777; UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB3PR03MB009; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-antispam-report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51874003)(117636001)(87936001)(19627405001)(16236675004)(2501003)(50986999)(102836002)(2656002)(66066001)(229853001)(106116001)(77156002)(110136001)(107886001)(2351001)(54356999)(62966003)(40100003)(450100001)(46102003)(122556002)(2900100001)(36756003)(86362001)(92566002)(71446004)(19625215002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB3PR03MB0777; H:DB3PR03MB0780.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(5002010); SRVR:DB3PR03MB0777; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DB3PR03MB0777; x-forefront-prvs: 0554B1F54F Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_142969941806019335ecitelecom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Apr 2015 10:43:43.8032 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2c514a61-08de-4519-b4c0-921fef62c42a X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB3PR03MB0777 X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com Archived-At: Subject: [RTG-DIR] Drafts without MUST requirements - advice needed X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:44:10 -0000 --_000_142969941806019335ecitelecom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear colleagues, Recently I have seen a few drafts with intended status as PS but wiythout a= ny MUST/MUST NOT requirement in the text. >From my POV this is bad form, because the implementer does not know what i= s the minimal functionality that provides any level of interoperability. In= the worst case the implementer may decide not to do anything and claim com= pliance. However, I could not find any documents that explicitly define such style = as not acceptable. Have I missed something? Or am I over-cautious? Your advice would be highly appreciated. Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha --_000_142969941806019335ecitelecom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear colleagues,

Recently I have seen a few drafts with intended status as PS but wiythou= t any MUST/MUST NOT requirement in the text.


From my POV this is bad form, because  the implementer does not kno= w what is the minimal functionality that provides any level of interoperabi= lity. In the worst case the implementer may decide not to do anything and c= laim compliance.


However, I could not find any documents that explicitly define such= style  as not acceptable. Have I missed something? Or am I over-cauti= ous?


Your advice would be highly appreciated.


Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,

Sasha

--_000_142969941806019335ecitelecom_-- From nobody Wed Apr 22 05:26:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968B21B353F for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 05:26:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sZTti9Y7NhEz for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 05:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B8DA1B353C for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 05:26:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3123; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429705589; x=1430915189; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=LxsmJHGl6WPb5S4/6jA3vTMfjjWHX4X/3zRabHO6+rw=; b=TrH9FfKUTtSCHPqOJ/WrS8apCh0lMGs0wSCYeu+MafY/FjxtJ3P5i6vE HWTojQtoUZXJ1XbxqdU6ZnrAR1Xe4Fncqb0HjfWDfaaNLaD+0e0KEc2kU RUvOXmLFJGYB7OWV7YWpMLiLGrX1d3K6UD5r8dhfuGFNBrlvHcFME8PNy 0=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,623,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="443447709" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2015 12:26:27 +0000 Received: from [64.103.106.98] (dhcp-bdlk10-data-vlan300-64-103-106-98.cisco.com [64.103.106.98]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3MCQQ0i016095; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:26:26 GMT Message-ID: <55379376.8010400@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:26:30 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Vainshtein , "rtg-dir@ietf.org" References: <1429699418060.19335@ecitele.com> In-Reply-To: <1429699418060.19335@ecitele.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050102010806040908030802" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Drafts without MUST requirements - advice needed X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:26:47 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050102010806040908030802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 22/04/2015 11:43, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > Recently I have seen a few drafts with intended status as PS but > wiythout any MUST/MUST NOT requirement in the text. > > > From my POV this is bad form, because the implementer does not know > what is the minimal functionality that provides any level of > interoperability. In the worst case the implementer may decide not to > do anything and claim compliance. > > > However, I could not find any documents that explicitly define such > style as not acceptable. Have I missed something? Or am I over-cautious? > > > Your advice would be highly appreciated. > > > Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, > > Sasha > Sasha I think that you need to provide a bit more context. It is possible to text describing a definitive action without using the word "must". Stewart --------------050102010806040908030802 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 22/04/2015 11:43, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:

Dear colleagues,

Recently I have seen a few drafts with intended status as PS but wiythout any MUST/MUST NOT requirement in the text.


From my POV this is bad form, because  the implementer does not know what is the minimal functionality that provides any level of interoperability. In the worst case the implementer may decide not to do anything and claim compliance.


However, I could not find any documents that explicitly define such style  as not acceptable. Have I missed something? Or am I over-cautious?


Your advice would be highly appreciated.


Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,

Sasha


Sasha

I think that you need to provide a bit more context.

It is possible to text describing a definitive action without using the word "must".

Stewart
--------------050102010806040908030802--