Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13)

[Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>]

The reason that the reviewer commented on the use of MAY is that the wording was sufficiently lacking in clarify as to sound as though it was describing a future possibility rather than the intended meaning of expressly sanctioning certain actions. This revised wording makes that intended meaning clear.

Please reconsider.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:16 AM
To: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13)

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> To: "Mark Davis" <mark at macchiato.com>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13)
...
> NEW text:
> The 'Description' field MAY be modified. Modifications for errata
> corrections or clarifications of intent are considered acceptable.
> However, attempts to provide translations or transcriptions of entries
> in the registry itself will probably be frowned upon by the community or
> rejected outright, as changes of this nature have an impact on the
> provisions in Section 3.4. Note that, since modifications are possible,
> the Description field is not guaranteed to be stable.
...

I do not see how this text is an improvement over the existing text.
Furthermore, since the reviewer's comment was only about the use
of "MAY", and since there have been no claims that any real or
potential operational or implementation problems would result from
the existing text, I see no reason to make a change here.

Randy


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru