Re: [GROW] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-12: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 14, 2017, at 8:42 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Ben,
> 
> Thanks for your review and comments.
> More inline. [Bruno]
> 
>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> 
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-12: Yes
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> I'm balloting "yes" because I think it's important to publish this. But, like
>> Alvaro,  I wonder why this is not standards track, BCP, or just about anything
>> but informational. So I support his DISCUSS, including his the comments on how
>> to resolve it.
> 
> [Bruno] Well noted: we now have 3 AD asking for STD track.
> If you don't mind, to avoid duplication, I'll follow up on Alvaro's email. (in short, STD track is ok for me)

Thanks, I will follow the discussion there.

> 
>> -1, last paragraph: This references RFC 8174, but does not use the actual 8174
>> boilerplate. Is there a reason not to do so?
> 
> [Bruno] My mistake: I had a comment to reference RFC 8174 rather than RFC 2119. I was not aware that this also implied changing the text.
> My understanding is the following:
> OLD:
> 	 <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
> 	 "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
> 	 and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
> 	 described in RFC 8174 <xref target="RFC8174"/>.</t>
> 
> 
> NEW
> 	<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
>      NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
>      "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
>      described in [BCP14] <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
>      appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
> 

Works for me.

> 
> 
> That being said, the irony is that RFC 8174 does not use an upper case "should":
> "Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:"
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174#section-2
> 

I think that was carefully chosen, since the 2119/8174 keywords are intended to be about interoperability among protocol implementations more than requirements for the standards process. OTOH, RFC 2119 has an all-caps MUST in the sentence that states that, making it a self-violating requirement:

"In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm."

So, go figure :-)


Thanks!

Ben.