doc: Fix 'must not'/'may not' wording #8277
Conversation
I applied the following terminology and changed the wording in the doc accordingly: * must not: If the parameter is of the value it *must not* be it either hits an assert or crashes the system. * may not: The value can be that value, but the function will return an error.
miri64
added
Area: doc
|
Ping? |
| @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ extern "C" { | |||
| /** | |||
| * @brief Default for DupAddrDetectTransmits | |||
| * @see [RFC 4862, section 5.1](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4862#section-5.1) | |||
| * @note May not be greater than 7. | |||
| * @note Must not be greater than 7. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reference doesn't name any max value, where does 7 come from - or did I miss that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we focus on the topic of this PR? This is about replacing "may not" with "must not"! In the meantime I will research why that is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is in fact GNRC-specific (so a follow-up should add something like […] with @ref net_gnrc).
| @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ extern "C" { | |||
| /** | |||
| * @brief Number of address registration retries | |||
| * | |||
| * @note May not be greater than 7. | |||
| * @note Must not be greater than 7. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
dito here, I haven't found any reference on a maximum RFC 6775, 3.3:
The response to an address registration might not be immediate, since
in route-over configurations the 6LR might perform Duplicate Address
Detection against the 6LBR. A host retransmits the Address
Registration Option until it is acknowledged by the receipt of an
Address Registration Option.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(The same answer as for #8277 (comment) applies here)
Sure, as said:
|
In RIOT-OS#8277 it was noted the doc of generic ND definitions refers to GNRC-specific behavior. This is now clarified with this fix.
In RIOT-OS#8277 it was noted the doc of general ND definitions refers to GNRC-specific behavior. This is now clarified with this fix.
smlng
added
the
CI: ready for build
In RIOT-OS#8277 it was noted the doc of general ND definitions refers to GNRC-specific behavior. This is now clarified with this fix.
In RIOT-OS#8277 it was noted the doc of general ND definitions refers to GNRC-specific behavior. This is now clarified with this fix.
Contribution description
I applied the following terminology and changed the wording in the doc
accordingly:
hits an assert or crashes the system.
error.
Issues/PRs references
Issue was brought up in #8253 (comment) and also earlier in discussions around the NIB by @cgundogan.