Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-01

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 11:36:52 -0500

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Document
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last
call comments.

This document merely clarifies the significance of capitalization of the
implementation requirement key words of RFC 2119. It's Security
Considerations section correctly states that there are none.

It is Ready except for a trivial editorial nit. In the sentence

   In many IETF documents several words are used to signify the
   requirements in the specification, when they are in all capitals as
   shown below.

I believe there should either be no comma or it should be re-ordered so
there are two commas as below.

   In many IETF documents several words, when they are in all
   capitals as shown below, are used to signify the requirements
   in the specification.

The automatic nits checker has two incorrect complaints that should be
ignored:

   1. that "NOT RECOMMENDED" occurs in the document but not in the
   documents RFC 2119 key words list, which is just because the document is
   talking about "NOT RECOMMENDED", and
   2. in contradiction, that the document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords
   but has RFC 2119 boilerplate, which is just because the document is talking
   about such boilerplate.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:03:40 -0800

Hi, Donald, and thanks for the review.  I agree with your two-comma
suggestion, and I'll put that in my working copy.

Barry

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]> wrote:
> that "NOT RECOMMENDED" occurs in the document but not in the documents RFC
> 2119 key words list, which is just because the document is talking about
> "NOT RECOMMENDED", and
> in contradiction, that the document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords but
> has RFC 2119 boilerplate, which is just because the document is talking
> about such boilerplate.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald