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

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:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>> Sent: 21 May 2015 13:40
>> To: Fatai Zhang; Daniele Ceccarelli; Ramon Casellas; Matt Hartley (mhartley);
>> ccamp@ietf.org
>> 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:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniele
>>> Ceccarelli
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2015 4:26 PM
>>> *To:* Ramon Casellas; Matt Hartley (mhartley); ccamp@ietf.org
>>> *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:ramon.casellas@cttc.es]
>>> *Sent:* giovedì 21 maggio 2015 10:20
>>> *To:* Daniele Ceccarelli; Matt Hartley (mhartley); ccamp@ietf.org
>>> <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
>>> *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.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> R.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 