Re: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

McDonald, Ira wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It would be nice if there were some agreement in this advice.
>
> Randy says the XSD *is* normative, but the plaintext wins in
> conflicts (which Joel says is not true under the prevailing
> IESG policy, because nothing but plaintext can be normative).
>
> Joel says the IESG doesn't bother much about labelling parts
> of RFCs normative or informative (the RFC Editor certainly
> doesn't agree with this one - a number of RFC's and I-Ds on
> proper RFC style address which body parts and appendices are
> or should be normative).
>
> I liked Steve's formulation very much, but it's broken by
> the "plaintext always wins" rule.  An incoming message could
> _fail_ the XSD check and still be valid under ambiguously
> written plaintext body parts...
>  
Are there specific portions of text that you are making objections or 
suggestions
for changes?   We aren't going to change IESG policy on this mailing 
list.  Unless
there are specific changes to the -05 draft to discuss here, I think 
this topic is closed.

> Cheers,
> - Ira
>  
Andy

> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
> PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
> phone: +1-906-494-2434
> email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:36 PM
> To: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List
>
>
> Hi -
>
>  
>
> > From: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
> > To: "'Joel M. Halpern'" <joel@stevecrocker.com>; "'Wes Hardaker'"
> >    
> <wjhns1@hardakers.net>; <sberl@cisco.com>
>  
>
> > Cc: "'Andy Bierman'" <abierman@cisco.com>; <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 5:27 AM
> > Subject: RE: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List
> >    
> ...
>  
>
> > Joel, Randy, Wes, et al - could you please explain
> > to this list how XSD is useful in NetConf if it's
> > not Normative?
> >    
> ...
>
> It *is* normative.  It's just that in the case of conflict or ambiguity,
> the English takes precedence.  This is as it should be.  I recall
> fixing errors in ASN.1 and MIB modules, where the fix was justified
> by the fact that the English text captured the WG intent and the
> formal notation said something else.  This routinely happens during
> MIB review cycles.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
>
>
>  


--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>