Re: #42 [-] Wording

# I know such a subtle English matter is beyond me...

At Wed, 11 May 2005 17:28:58 +0900,
Shoichi Sakane <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >>#42 [-] Wording
> >>(waiting a revision)
> >>
> >>	Section 4.3, discussing attributes, mixes singular and plural
> >>	indications.
> 
> If Ken indicated the following sentence;
> 
>    The initiator MUST check to see if the optimistic payload was selected by
>    comparing all transforms and attributes which MUST be identical from
>    the initiator's optimistic proposal with the lone exception of
>    LIFE_KILOBYTES and LIFE_SECONDS.
> 
> then I think that the original text in the section 4.3 is nearly correct.
> because a single proposal can contain multiple transforms, for example,
> using both ESP and AH.  and regardless of that, a transform can contain
> multiple attributes.

I agree that this is just a wording issue.
How about this:

   The initiator MUST check to see if the optimistic payload was
   selected by comparing all transforms and attributes which MUST be
   identical from those in the initiator's optimistic proposal with the lone
                  ~~~~~~~~
   exception of LIFE_KILOBYTES and LIFE_SECONDS.  Each of these
                                                  ~~~~
   attributes MAY be set to a lower value by the respondent and still
   expect optimistic keying, but MUST NOT be set to a higher value which
   MUST generate an error.


> >>                    The word "lone" appears to be popular with the author,
> >>	too. :-)  (Ken Raeburn)
> 
> kink payloads can logically chain infinitely.  so i guess the author
> used the word.  i propose that the section 7.3 should be placed before
> the section 4.3.  we can reduce using the word because the seciton 7.3
> explains the kink packet structure.

I'm not sure but LIFE_KILOBYTES _and_ LIFE_SECONDS are two,
not "lone"?

-- 
KAMADA Ken'ichi <[email protected]>