Subject: [Tools-discuss] idnits issue?

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:00:22 +0300

For draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec, idnits reports

>  - The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
>    it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a
>    matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
>  
>
The text is exactly correct, except that it has ".... [1]." instead of
".... RFC 2119.". Adding "RFC 2119" in front of "[1]" makes the
problem go away. The reference [¡] is, of course, RFC 2119.

I am trying to understand if this is a bug or a feature.
Thoughts?

--Jari

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:24:52 +0200

Hi Jari,

> I am trying to understand if this is a bug or a feature.

RFC 2119 defines a phrase which should be incorporated in the document,
and idnits currently looks for that phrase.  However it's a 'should',
not even a "SHOULD", and the ID-Checklist actually only require that
RFC 2119 is _referenced_.  So I'd say that this document is OK.  That
leaves the question of whether idnits needs to be changed, and in that
case how.

One way would be to make this test weaker, and accept any reference
in place of "RFC 2119".  This makes it possible for people to include
the text, but reference whatever, say RFC 1291.

Another is to identify the reference, and later look to see if RFC 2119
is mentioned in that specific reference.  This seems better, but more
complex.  I'll see if I can make that happen without too neck-breaking
convolutions of the code.

Comments?

	Henrik

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:46:15 +0300

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

>not even a "SHOULD", 
I am disappointed that RFC 2119 fails to use keywords, but
glad to see that it does employ RFC 2119 mandated phrase
near the beginning of document ;-)

>and the ID-Checklist actually only require that
I think it makes most sense to check both that (a) there is a reference
to RFC 2119 and that (b) the phrase either mentions RFC 2119 or
points to some reference. Actually following the reference through
the document would mean a lot of complex code for you and not
add a lot of value.

Rationale: I would rather see an occasional document that gets
the 2119 reference wrong than an incorrectly given error from
idnits.

--Jari

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:25:14 -0400 (EDT)

"should" != "SHOULD" when triggering 2119 reference requirement

Scott

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:00:29 +0200

Hi Jari,

> near the beginning of document ;-)

It seems Scott is saying that the use of 'should' instead of 'SHOULD' in
2119 is intentional...

> the document would mean a lot of complex code for you and not

It turns out not to be too bad.  I'm working on this now.

> the 2119 reference wrong than an incorrectly given error from

Understood.  I won't go this way if it doesn't feel solid.

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:34:51 +0200

Hi Scott,

> "should" != "SHOULD" when triggering 2119 reference requirement

Yes, that's the way idnits treats it - the presence of 'should' or
'must' or .... does not trigger idnits to look for 2119 boilerplate
or a reference to 2119, but 'SHOULD', 'MUST', etc. does.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:42:19 +0200

on 2006-07-31 16:00 Henrik Levkowetz said the following:
[Jari]
> It turns out not to be too bad.  I'm working on this now.

idnits v1.104 is now out, with the following changes:

  * Changed the test for 2119 to permit a non-verbatim quote of the 2119
    language where 'RFC 2119' is replaced by a reference, and the reference
    text mentions RFC 2119.

  * Made the absence of both 2119 boilerplate and 2119 reference an error,
    according to the ID-Checklist.  (Earlier, when only looking for the 2119
    boilerplate, this was only a warning).

  * When there is a reference to 2119, but no 2119 boilerplate, the
    warning issued regarding missing boilerplate also notes that the
    reference has been seen.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:51:17 -0400 (EDT)

sounds like correctness to me

----
>From [email-masked]  Mon Jul 31 12:34:54 2006
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:34:51 +0200
From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Re: idnits issue?

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig9AB63C7EE0F6C08C6EB19590
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Scott,

on 2006-07-31 15:25 Scott Bradner said the following:
> "should" !=3D "SHOULD" when triggering 2119 reference requirement

Regards,

	Henrik

--------------enig9AB63C7EE0F6C08C6EB19590
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

--------------enig9AB63C7EE0F6C08C6EB19590--

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:05:37 +0300

>idnits v1.104 is now out, with the following changes:
Tested it and it works. Great work! Thanks.

--Jari

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:07:08 -0700

>     boilerplate, this was only a warning).

So I'm confused about this one.

Suppose I have a document that contains no requirements language, and  
therefore no instance of "SHOULD" etc. Is this going to ding me for  
not including the boilerplate and the reference? Personally, I don't  
include either the boilerplate or reference if I don't use the term.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:48:13 +0200

Hi Fred,

on 2006-07-31 20:07 Fred Baker said the following:
> not including the boilerplate and the reference?

No, certainly not.  That would be silly :-)

> Personally, I don't  

Makes complete sense to me.

	Henrik