Hi Vijay, and thank you for your review!
The distinction between MUST and SHALL in this document is intentional. We use MUST to indicate "if X happens, then you MUST do Y" whereas we use SHALL to indicate "The procedure is as follows: step 1 you SHALL do Z". Based on previous RFCs published by this WG and on guidance from the IESG, the choice between MUST and SHALL lies with the editors. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your advice and will leave the text as-is.
Thank you,
David
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 1:40 PM Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
Review result: Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-08
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2023-03-03
IETF LC End Date: 2023-03-15
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: The I-D is ready for moving ahead as a Proposed Standard.
Major issues: 0
Minor issues: 1
Nits/editorial comments: 0
Minor Issue:
- The I-D alternates between MUST and SHALL, sometimes using both in the same
sentence or paragraph. Between MUST and SHALL, my advise is to be consistent
and pick one. All things being equal, MUST is preferable since a neophyte
reader of the I-D, not well versed in IETF ways, can easily understand the
authority behind MUST.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
