Subject: [tcpm] 793bis: references to 2119 keywords

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:22:23 -0400

In the 793bis draft, some time ago we had included the appendix from 
1122 that has a table of all the places where 2119 keywords are used 
(MUST/SHOULD/MAY/etc).

I'm now updating that so that it:
(1) points to the right section numbers or places within the current 
document rather than 1122
(2) contains references for requirements that came from other documents 
than 1122

There are a few challenges, and I have a proposal.

Instead of carrying forth exactly the prior format where the table 
looked like:

                                                   |        | | | |S| |
                                                   |        | | | |H| |F
                                                   |        | | | |O|M|o
                                                   |        | |S| |U|U|o
                                                   |        | |H| |L|S|t
                                                   |        |M|O| |D|T|n
                                                   |        |U|U|M| | |o
                                                   |        |S|L|A|N|N|t
                                                   |RFC1122 |T|D|Y|O|O|t
  FEATURE                                          |SECTION | | | |T|T|e
  -------------------------------------------------|--------|-|-|-|-|-|--
  Closing Connections                              |        | | | | | |
    Half-duplex close connections                  |4.2.2.13| | |x| | |

I'm suggesting to replace the "RFC1122 SECTION" column with one called 
something like "ID", and then adding an ID tag into the sentence where 
the requirement occurs, which winds up looking like:

                                                   |        | | | |S| |
                                                   |        | | | |H| |F
                                                   |        | | | |O|M|o
                                                   |        | |S| |U|U|o
                                                   |        | |H| |L|S|t
                                                   |        |M|O| |D|T|n
                                                   |        |U|U|M| | |o
                                                   |        |S|L|A|N|N|t
                                                   |        |T|D|Y|O|O|t
  FEATURE                                          |   ID   | | | |T|T|e
  -------------------------------------------------|--------|-|-|-|-|-|--
  Closing Connections                              |        | | | | | |
    Half-duplex close connections                  | MAY-1  | | |x| | |

And then searching the document for "MAY-1", you would find the sentence 
in section 3.5.1:

    A host MAY implement a "half-duplex" TCP close sequence, so that an
    application that has called CLOSE cannot continue to read data from
    the connection (MAY-1).

Subsequent statements would be labelled "MAY-2", "MAY-3", etc.

Before I do this for a large number of these, I thought it would be good 
to solicit feedback from the group. Does this seem like a good idea? Is 
it valuable? Given that XML2RFC "artwork" can't contain "xref" tags, it 
seems easier and less error prone than maintaining section number 
references in that table.

---

From: Theodore V Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 18:27:02 +0000

That seems like a sound idea to me.

I suggest using some abbreviation other than "ID" to avoid confusion with "I-D" (Internet-Draft).  "Marker", maybe?

--
Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Senior Engineering Specialist
Computer Systems Research Department
The Aerospace Corporation
310-336-7373

________________________________________
From: tcpm <[email-masked]> on behalf of Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 08:22
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [tcpm] 793bis: references to 2119 keywords

In the 793bis draft, some time ago we had included the appendix from 1122 that has a table of all the places where 2119 keywords are used (MUST/SHOULD/MAY/etc).

I'm now updating that so that it:
(1) points to the right section numbers or places within the current document rather than 1122
(2) contains references for requirements that came from other documents than 1122

Instead of carrying forth exactly the prior format where the table looked like:

                                                  |        | | | |S| |
                                                  |        | | | |H| |F
                                                  |        | | | |O|M|o
                                                  |        | |S| |U|U|o
                                                  |        | |H| |L|S|t
                                                  |        |M|O| |D|T|n
                                                  |        |U|U|M| | |o
                                                  |        |S|L|A|N|N|t
                                                  |RFC1122 |T|D|Y|O|O|t

I'm suggesting to replace the "RFC1122 SECTION" column with one called something like "ID", and then adding an ID tag into the sentence where the requirement occurs, which winds up looking like:

                                                  |        | | | |S| |
                                                  |        | | | |H| |F
                                                  |        | | | |O|M|o
                                                  |        | |S| |U|U|o
                                                  |        | |H| |L|S|t
                                                  |        |M|O| |D|T|n
                                                  |        |U|U|M| | |o
                                                  |        |S|L|A|N|N|t
                                                  |        |T|D|Y|O|O|t

And then searching the document for "MAY-1", you would find the sentence in section 3.5.1:

Before I do this for a large number of these, I thought it would be good to solicit feedback from the group. Does this seem like a good idea? Is it valuable? Given that XML2RFC "artwork" can't contain "xref" tags, it seems easier and less error prone than maintaining section number references in that table.