Subject: [lemonade] Comments on draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-05.txt

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:51:39 -0700

In Section 4 (Response Codes), do we really mean "may return a 
response code"?  I think "SHOULD return a response code" would be 
better, but in any case it is not clear if "may" is intended to be 
normative.

In Section 4.1 (BADURL Response), it is not clear if "invalid" means 
syntactically or semantically regarding UIDs and body parts.  That 
is, is this response code to be used if the syntax is bad or if the 
referenced item does not exist?

in Section 4.2 (TOOBIG Response), "The server may also wish to 
return" perhaps would be more clear written normatively, as "The 
server MAY return".

Also, in the super nit-pick category, line 190 has "e.g." which 
should be "e.g.," (it needs a comma).
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
To die for an idea is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it
would be if men died for ideas that were true!
    --H.L. Mencken

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Philip Guenther <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:59:39 -0700

>better, but in any case it is not clear if "may" is intended to be 

The catenate draft does reference RFC 2119 or otherwise define
particular words in uppercase as having special normative meaning.
Changing that sentence to use "SHOULD" (or "MAY") would require many
other changes to the draft to keep it consistent.  On reflection, I
agree with the author's choice to use normal English prose and let the
words speak for themselves.  No, really, we can use the words "may",
"should", and "must" as other than normative baseball bats to beat
implementors with.

With regards to that particular sentence, I read it as being
descriptive, acting as an introduction to the subsections that follow.

>referenced item does not exist?

Given the first sentence of the subsection, it is obviously meant to
apply to *all* cases where a supplied URL cannot be resolved to a chunk
of text to include.  Perhaps the second sentence should be changed to
start "Some possible reasons..." to make it clear that the list is _not_
exhaustive.

Philip Guenther

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:21:18 +0100

Randall Gellens wrote:

> syntactically or semantically regarding UIDs and body parts.  That is, 
> is this response code to be used if the syntax is bad or if the 

Both, at least that was my intent when I recommended it.

Alexey

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:34:59 -0700

>  "should", and "must" as other than normative baseball bats to beat

I hadn't noticed the lack of RFC 2119 reference.  Interesting to have 
a standards-track document with no normative language.

By the way, I've written a few documents that use normative language, 
and as far as I know have never used such language as a bat or other 
implement of beating.

>  start "Some possible reasons..." to make it clear that the list is _not_

OK.
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is
supposed to be doing at the moment.               --Robert Benchley