Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Wed, 10 August 2016 12:37 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EAA612D7A1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 05:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id br35uweljWjz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 05:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848C012B028 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 05:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 09ECE90960F; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 08:37:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 08:37:00 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt
Message-ID: <20160810123659.GH4396@verdi>
References: <147077254472.30640.13738163813175851232.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJLHx7ytgZqZ9zQXA3vVSU-pNggQQs+QiDnzQ4tBEH5VAQ@mail.gmail.com> <23c809d5-a43d-59de-7e07-3b902848df20@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <23c809d5-a43d-59de-7e07-3b902848df20@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2AHvKpScFltd9joDcWlk5mcwGfo>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:37:03 -0000

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Having thought a little more about this, I am wondering about
> unintended consequences in the 5K documents that we have
> written since RFC2119 was published.

   Actually, there is an obvious meaning of citing RFC xxxx or BCX xx:
which implies, "at the time of this publication".

   Nonetheless, I urge including text if leiba-rfc2119-update becomes an
RFC: stating that going forward, a reference to RFC 2119 will continue
to include-by-reference RFC 2119 as published, whereas a reference to
BCP 14 will include-by-reference whatever BCP 14 may be (or have been)
at the time any RFC referencing it is published.

   (This really doesn't change much of anything; but the opportunity for
confusion is _so_ great that I'm sure it will arise.)

   We must leave it to the RFC Editor to do whatever _can_ be done to
ensure that nobody "unintentionally" cites RFC 2119 or BCP 14 in such
a way as to cause further confusion.

> If we effectively change RFC2119 as we propose, is there a danger that
> readers will incorrectly interpret old text with new semantics. 

   RFC 2119 _cannot_ change.

   Nor, alas, _can_ we change the confusion in existing documents which
cite RFC 2119.

   We can only reduce that confusion going forward -- and that only if
the RFC Editor agrees to discourage citing RFC 2119 in future documents.

> I have no idea whether anything of significance will occur but
> considering the thought put into terms like SHOULD there exists a risk
> that would be mitigated if we picked a new RFC number whereupon the
> reader would know which definition the writers and reviewers were using.

   I would have recommended this, too, if I were writing the document.
But I stand by my previous statement: we can only reduce the confusion
if the RFC Editor discourages citing RFC 2119 after draft-leiba becomes
an RFC.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>