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

[Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>]

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.
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.

Thanks
R.