it seems RFCs are not in xml format.
So I will do without. The BCP14 will not be referenced by an xml2rfc
tag, but by some web automation.
Alex
Le 09/04/2019 à 14:18, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
It's a good idea.
I need the xml of it.
Is RFC8505 available as xml?
I cant find it at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8505
Le 09/04/2019 à 13:04, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
Maybe copy section 2.1 of rfc 8505?
Regards,
Pascal
Le 9 avr. 2019 à 16:42, Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
In private, a person clarified this to me, and I agree. The
Canonical URL points to a document that says at its top that there
are actually two documents there (RFC 2119 and RFC 8174). I have to
scroll down to see the second. (it is a bit strange to me to see two
RFCs concatenated, but I guess it is an exception).
The question left is the following: how to refer to BCP 14 in the xml
text of draft IP-over-OCB?
The typical way of using it for referring to RFCs does not work.
xml2rfc issues errors on this reference:
<xref target="BCP14"/>
[...]
<?rfc
include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.BCP.14";
?>
Maybe others have already referred to BCP 14 in their Internet Drafts?
Alex
Le 08/04/2019 à 13:10, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
Le 04/03/2019 à 12:24, Pascal Thubert a écrit :
Reviewer: Pascal Thubert
Review result: Not Ready
[...]
BCP 14 text:
Suggest to use this text:
“
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14
https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14
[https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119][RFC8174] when, and only
when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.
“
I will add it, thank you. I want to be up to date with most recent
specs.
But here are my worries about it for what is worth:
- I dont understand though why the need to say 'capitals' when in
CAPITALS is it written.
- I thought that a BCP document was just one RFC. Here we seem to
be talking about BCP-14 being both RFC2119 and RFC8174.
A google search on BCP-14 hits first on RFC 2119, and a document
called 'bcp14' (not on RFC8174). https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14
The second hit is a page at RFC Editor which points to a "Canonical
URL" towards https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14.txt which does not
talk about RFC8174 either.
It then points to https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/ref-bcp14.txt
That ref points back to a web page telling the "Canonical URL".
- finally, the text ends with 'as shown here', which invites my
reading to think that what follows needs to be understood with these
capitals. And what follows is the definition of terms like "IP-OBU",
etc. That is worrisome. You can understand the worry if you read
it as a whole:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
IP-OBU (Internet Protocol On-Board Unit): an IP-OBU is a computer
situated in a vehicle such as an automobile, bicycle, or
similar. It
has at least one IP interface that runs in mode OCB of 802.11, and
that has an "OBU" transceiver. See the definition of the term
"OBU"
in section Appendix I.
The dot after 'here' is very important, but so small. A quick or
low-sighted reader may see it as double dots. And that would be a
problem, because the "IP-OBU" term definition is not suject to that
capitalization.
Alex
