> On 31. Aug 2017, at 15:02, Benoit Claise <bclaise@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>>>> Also, I don't see the value of the last sentence in this paragraph, especially with RFC2119 MAY. >>>>> >>>>> This section defines several stream schedulers. The stream >>>>> schedulers may behave differently depending on whether user message >>>>> interleaving has been negotiated for the association or not. An >>>>> implementation MAY implement any subset of them. >>>> During the review the question was brought up which scheduler have to be implemented >>>> by an implementation. This sentence was add to address it. >>>> If you want, I can remove it. >>> The point is that the MAY is that sentence doesn't mean anything. >>> Maybe you mean: >>> >>> An implementation MUST implement at least one stream scheduler. >> That would require an implementation to implement at least one of >> the ones being listed. You are right in the sense that an implementation >> MUST implement at least one stream scheduler, but the original text >> allows that one not to be specified in this document. >> >> Are you saying that an implementation MUST implement one of list defined >> by this document? > I'm saying that "An implementation MAY implement any subset of them." as a sentence doesn't make sense. > Are we going in circle here? What about: What about this change: OLD TEXT: An implementation MAY implement any subset of them. NEW TEXT: An implementation MAY implement any subset of them. If the implementation is used for WebRTC Datachannels as specified in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] it MUST implement the Weighted Fair Queueing Scheduler defined in Section 3.6. Best regards Michael > > Regards, B.
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>