Subject: [Lager] [lager] #31 (specification): Requested clarifications

From: "lager issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 06:48:03 -0000

#31: Requested clarifications

 Request received off-list

 Here are a couple of points you may want to consider next time you review
 this document:

 1.      It is not clear what is the default disposition of a code point
 which is declared without a type.  Some text around it would be useful.

 2.      In many examples, same tag, class name and rule name are used,
 which makes the reading a bit confusing.  It would be useful to make these
 different either arbitrarily or by suggesting an optional convention, e.g.
 tpreferred vs. cpreferred, rpreferred to differentiate them.

 3. The example rule just before 5.3.5 seems to be missing the <class by-
 ref=”digit” count=”1+”> line

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-lager-
  [email-masked]   |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
 Priority:  minor        |  Milestone:
Component:               |    Version:
  specification          |   Keywords:
 Severity:  -            |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lager/trac/ticket/31>
lager <https://tools.ietf.org/lager/>

---

From: "lager issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 06:54:03 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 The default disposition was clearly specified as "allocatable" and is
 derived from a catch-all action (so variant types, present or missing, are
 ignored).

 However, as noted in ticket #30 it is unsatisfactory to have the catch-all
 label assign any disposition that matches a variant type, such as
 "allocatable".

 Instead, a better choice is to simply use "valid", indicating that the
 label passed all constraints on repertoire and did not trigger any actions
 with more specific dispositions.

 As a result, I've created draft language that combines the text for item 1
 of this ticket and ticket #30 and pushed that up to the github.

 Item 2 is unclear to me - I would need a more concrete instance.

 Item 3 is a minor clarification. I rolled that up, together with a few
 other editorial nits on my list in the same draft.

  specification          |  Resolution:
 Keywords:               |

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/lager/trac/ticket/31#comment:1>
lager <https://tools.ietf.org/lager/>