Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 and call for sheperd

[Ramon Casellas <[e-mail]>]

All

Thank you very much for stating your opinions. In view of the circulated 
examples, I will proceed to add extra text to qualify the use of RFC2119 
language. Since we were given the choice, I think that this approach 
minimizes the number of edits and changes, is less error prone and does 
not require sub-sub-subsequent review of the sections (even if a 
:%s/MUST/must/cg could do it...)

OTOH no one has objected to the new IM following Jonas' comments. I will 
leave a few more days and update these two changes in a -05 version

I have contacted the authors privately to follow RFC editor guidelines 
regarding authorship.

Regards
Ramon


El 21/05/2015 a las 17:51, Lou Berger escribió:
> I don't have a strong opinion on this either way for this draft.  My
> statement was WRT Fatai's comment on RFC7062 and the general usage of
> 2119 language.
>
> Lou
>
> On 05/21/2015 11:33 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> I'm not going to get excited about this.
>>
>> I was pretty much OK with Standards Track in -03. I thought that the document
>> told folk how build a network as well as setting the requirements. So in -03 the
>> 2119 language was fine, IMHO.
>>
>> However, if we want to go Informational I also don't mind. Clearly 2119 language
>> is less relevant in an informational document, although I often find it is
>> helpful in requirements specs to clarify the requirements. I have handled this
>> in the past by using a variation of the 2119 boilerplate such as in section 2 of
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5862.txt (completely random example).
>>
>> But I really, really don't care. path of least resistance to raid publication,
>> please.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>>> Sent: 21 May 2015 13:40
>>> To: Fatai Zhang; Daniele Ceccarelli; Ramon Casellas; Matt Hartley (mhartley);
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 and
>> call
>>> for sheperd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/21/2015 04:57 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    I would like to share the experience in RFC7062, which also describes
>>>>    a set of requirments in Section 5.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    If my memory is correct, I as the editor of RFC7062 was asked by Lou
>>>>    (as the CCAMP chair at that time)  to remove RFC2119 language during
>>>>    the LC of this draft.
>>> Sounds right.  In general RFC 2119 conformance language is only
>>> appropriate when discussing things that can impact interoperability,
>>> formats and behavior "on the wire". This is a general rule, and their
>>> are exceptions...
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>>
>>>>    I would also like to hear the confirmation from Adrian and our AD,
>>>>    Deborah.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fatai
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Daniele
>>>> Ceccarelli
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2015 4:26 PM
>>>> *To:* Ramon Casellas; Matt Hartley (mhartley); [e-mail]
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on
>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 and call for sheperd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ramon,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No worries, the last call comments can be solved in two different
>>>> version, we can send the -05 to the IESG (if there are no major changes
>>>> from -03 to -05).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I’d like to hear from Adrian on the requirements section.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Daniele
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Ramon Casellas [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> *Sent:* giovedì 21 maggio 2015 10:20
>>>> *To:* Daniele Ceccarelli; Matt Hartley (mhartley); [e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on
>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 and call for sheperd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> El 21/05/2015 a las 9:57, Daniele Ceccarelli escribió:
>>>>
>>>>      Hi Matt, Ramon,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      Since I found no clear statements on the usage of RFC2119 language
>>>>      with respect to this situations, I had a look at existing framework
>>>>      and requirement RFCs trying to find a common WoW. My take is:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      -        Framework is always informational
>>>>
>>>>      -        Requirements are always informational
>>>>
>>>>      -        RFC2119 language is not homogeneous. Sometimes capital
>>>>      letters are used and sometimes not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      My preference is to use capital letters only when protocol behavior
>>>>      is defined, not when requirements for the design of the protocol are
>>>>      defined (this is in line with e.g. RFC7062 and RFC6163).
>>>>
>>>>      As I said this is just a preference, but if there is no reasonable
>>>>      objection I would suggest not to use any capital letter in the
>>>>      fwk+req document.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Daniele, all
>>>>
>>>>   I was also checking existing RFCs, and IMHO:
>>>> - The document can stay informational, it is mainly fwk+reqs. We seem to
>>>> agree on this.
>>>> - While RFC2119 states "In many standards track documents several words
>>>> are used to signify the requirements in the specification", there seems
>>>> to  be (some?) existing practice on using RFC2119 wording in reqs/info
>>>> documents, including capitalization.
>>>> - Usage of RFC2119 keywords seems scoped to the section on requirements
>>>> in the draft. It could be argued that defining requirements is to some
>>>> extent defining high level protocol behavior :)
>>>>
>>>> IIRC Adrian authored a significant part of the section, any views?
>>>>
>>>> That said, -05 needs to be uploaded anyway to reflect the new info-model
>>>> (thanks Jonas!) , it is not game-changing to change to acomodate what
>>>> you suggest. We could remove RFC2119 reference, the boilerplate text and
>>>> re-visit the sections, mainly using lowercase.