Re: [Fecframe] comments on draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-02.txt

[Stephan Wenger <stewe at stewe.org>]

Hi Ali,

On 8/31/09 5:04 PM, "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen at cisco.com> wrote:

> [...]
>  
>> Unrelated to the technical aspects here, it seems odd to me that an IETF
>> informational RFC-to-be would attempt to use any RFC 2119 normative language
>> to describe what is already specified elsewhere (using non-RFC2119 lingo).
>> First, arguably, an informational RFC should not use RFC2119 language at
>> all---as it is informational.  Second, there may be subtle differences
> 
> We attempted to use 2119 language for the implementers of the 1-d draft to
> become compatible with the al-fec protocol. Is this incorrect use of the 2119
> language?
> 

RFC 2119 language is common in informational RFCs, so let me row back a bit
on my first point.

> If it is, then we can certainly lower-case those words.
> 
>> between the interpretation of the normative languages of the two
>> organization which could be lost in the "translation" process.  That, in
>> turn, could lead to incompatible implementations stemming from the different
>> specs.
> 
> I suppose lower-case words will help with this, too.

Indeed it would, and it would make me feel more comfortable.

Stephan