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

[zouzixuan <tendyntu at huawei.com>]

Hi, All
	I attend to agree with Stephan that lowercase is more appropriate in
this case. 

Best
Zou ZiXuan, Senior Research Staff
Media & Communication Lab
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,LTD. 

Address: Huawei Industrial Base
Bantian Longgang
Shenzhen 518129, P.R.China
Tel: +86 0755 28789364
Fax: +86 0755 28788317
E-mail: tendyntu at huawei.com
www.huawei.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
HUAWEI, which 
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any
use of the 
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to,
total or partial 
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
intended 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender by 
phone or email immediately and delete it!


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephan Wenger [mailto:stewe at stewe.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 5:36 AM
To: Ali C. Begen (abegen); zouzixuan; fecframe at ietf.org
Cc: Thomas Stockhammer
Subject: Re: [Fecframe] comments on draft-ietf-fecframe-dvb-al-fec-02.txt

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