Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-05.txt> (Congestion Control Requirements For RMCAT) to Informational RFC

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 22:37:06 -0400

The IESG <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the RTP Media Congestion Avoidance
> Techniques WG (rmcat) to consider the following document:
> - 'Congestion Control Requirements For RMCAT'
>   <draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-05.txt> as Informational RFC
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2014-08-13. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

   I feel obliged to point out the "Requirements Language":

] The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
] "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
] document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
] The terms are presented in many cases using lowercase for
] readability.

   I really don't understand the intent here; but a plain reading would
say that every "may" in the text (including two in the boilerplate) is
a 2119-may. This seems unlikely.

   I strongly recommend that this wording not be used. It would be far
better to state that the 2119 meaning _only_ applies when the terms are
UPPERCASE.

   I realize that the WG will have to review which lowercase-musts are
intended as 2119-musts: there would appear to be eight cases which _might_
be intended as 2119-musts; but I seriously doubt that more than 10% of
the lowercase-mays were intended as 2119-mays.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>