IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sat, 05 January 2013 08:39 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 460CD21F8788 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 00:39:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tjpbXvf6drVe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 00:39:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C15A21F8780 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 00:39:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 789149C; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 09:39:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726BE9A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 09:39:18 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 09:39:18 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8_a8cRSKrHzE4fZSrMNO6pGLa9vCcHzKUmHsVtCWRCf6g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1301050936060.26235@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CADnDZ8-yCxUbrD9oFyQKkJuTgDZbamnV8K4GU+sAN5SekpyHAA@mail.gmail.com> <CADnDZ8_a8cRSKrHzE4fZSrMNO6pGLa9vCcHzKUmHsVtCWRCf6g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 08:39:21 -0000

As an operator, I purchase equipment and need to write RFQs. I would like 
to able to ask more than "does the product implement RFC <whatever>", I 
want to also ask "Please document all instances where you did not follow 
all MUST and SHOULD, and why".

Otherwise I think there needs to be better definition of what it means to 
"implement" or "support" an RFC when it comes to completness and what this 
means as per following SHOULD and MAY.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email