Eric - On May 7, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Eric Gray wrote: > David, > > I agree with Spencer on the point of "system thoughts" > verses "system states." This may appear to be a style issue, > but it is actually simply a matter of trying to be as precise > as the language allows. Who knows what a system "thinks"? > But it should be clear if a system is in an appropriate state. > DW: Sorry, which comment is this in reference to? > On the next issue, I don't understand your argument: are > you saying that you believe it is necessary to explicitly say > that "defending against operator error is out of scope"? > DW: Given we are talking about laws of physics and we have seen implementation and deployment issues, it seemed worthy of not removing the statement in this instance. > Finally, Spencer's (last?) comment on use of "stronger" > is (again) not a stylistic one, but an attempt to squeeze the > little bit of precision that can be achieved in English. It > is apparent that you believe you are saying "Using SHA1 is > believed to have stronger security properties than MD5" (as > indeed is suggested by Spencer), but you are not (exactly). > Change the statement to "drinking milk, as opposed to chewing > rocks, leads to stonger bones" and you will see that what you > have said makes no explicit comparison between SHA1 and MD5 > (or milk and rocks, in my example). Because the statement is > already in passive voice (whose belief is this?), and is vague > enough as it is, then we should try to fix as much of it as we > can. > DW: Finessing this sentence isn't an issue. Rocks for breakfast? -DWard > -- > Eric Gray > Principal Engineer > Ericsson > >> -----Original Message----- > --- [SNIP] --- >> >>> packet to the correct BFD session after it is looped back to the >>> sender. The contents are otherwise outside the scope of this >>> specification. >>> >>> 6.6. Demand Mode >>> >>> Demand mode is requested independently in each direction by virtue > of >>> a system setting the Demand (D) bit in its BFD Control packets. > The >>> Demand bit can only be set if both systems think the session is > up. >>> >>> Spencer (clarity): this doesn't seem quite right to me, because the > >>> statement requires that my system knows what the other system >>> thinks. Is it correct to say "a system can only set the Demand bit >>> when a session has transitioned to UP"? It might be preferable to >>> delete the second sentence, because the following text explains >>> this in greater detail, anyway. >>> >> >> DW: This appears to be a style comment on "is up" vs "has >> transitioned to UP," right? >> >> >>> The system receiving the Demand bit ceases the periodic > transmission >>> of BFD Control packets. If both systems are operating in Demand >>> mode, no periodic BFD Control packets will flow in either > direction. >>> >>> Note that this mechanism requires that the Detection Time > negotiated >>> is greater than the round trip time between the two systems, or > the >>> Poll mechanism will always fail. Enforcement of this requirement > is >>> outside the scope of this specification. >>> >>> Spencer (clarity): you're not describing a requirement, you're >>> describing a constraint. Perhaps "Note that this mechanism will >>> always fail unless the Detection Time negotiated is greater than >>> the round trip time between the two systems", and drop the second >>> sentence? >>> >> >> DW: What we are trying to state is that BFD cannot keep an operator >> from making a configuration error. There is a constraint due to >> physics and a requirement that it be adhered to and ... BFD can't >> stop anyone from doing something stupid. "Enforcing the requirement >> to meet the constraint ..." may be clearer language although a nit. >> > --- [SNIP] --- > >>> transmission rate and/or the Detection Time). >>> >>> Security Considerations >>> >>> Using SHA1 rather than MD5 is believed to have stronger security >>> properties. All comments about MD5 in this section also apply to >>> >>> Spencer (clarity): "stronger than"? would this be correct if it >>> said "Using SHA1 is believed to have stronger security properties >>> than MD5"? >>> >>> SHA1. >>> >> >> >> DW: This seems a style choice. >> >> >> Many thanks for your thorough review. >> >> -DWard >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> Gen-art@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >> _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf