Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-05

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Julian,

I agree with your point here (on how RFC 2119 works). I thought the document 
would be clearer with 2119 language here, but it should not be included if 
you aren't comfortable using it.

Thanks,

Spencer


> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> ...
>> 3.  WebDAV extended MKCOL
>>
>>   The WebDAV MKCOL request is extended to allow the inclusion of a
>>   request body.  The request body is an XML document containing a
>>   single DAV:mkcol XML element as the root element.  The Content-Type
>>
>> Spencer (minor): if I'm reading this paragraph correctly, I'd suggest 
>> "The request body is an XML document that MUST contain a single DAV:mkcol 
>> XML element as the root element" here - the last sentence in this 
>> paragraph makes me think the requirement is normative, but it doesn't 
>> look normative to 2119 scanners :-)
>> ...
>
> -0.5
>
> As far as I can tell, it is a myth that things can only be normative when 
> using RFC 2119 keywords. As a matter of fact, RFC 2119 points out:
>
> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
>
>    Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
>    and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
>    actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
>    potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For
>    example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
>    on implementors where the method is not required for
>    interoperability.
>
>
> So I'd prefer document authors to be more conservative in using those 
> terms...
>
> BR, Julian