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

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 11 August 2016 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
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 E37B412D50E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.147
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 rwX_593Q4YK8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29C1312B00B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.4] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u7BFE7Fp074178 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:14:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.4]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 10:14:07 -0500
Message-ID: <031F4DFB-FDE8-464C-A40B-4070269D26E6@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKpqbAaskT8GcC8EFBy4ouXbkVe6LJ68j-UyQ4syQSnkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <147077254472.30640.13738163813175851232.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJLHx7ytgZqZ9zQXA3vVSU-pNggQQs+QiDnzQ4tBEH5VAQ@mail.gmail.com> <1701C0A2-CF98-43A9-A048-E72DA397412D@asgard.org> <CALaySJKpqbAaskT8GcC8EFBy4ouXbkVe6LJ68j-UyQ4syQSnkg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4kD_JCqONPSzQvfmZYjfoFPmeWw>
Cc: 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: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:14:49 -0000

On 10 Aug 2016, at 11:18, Barry Leiba wrote:

> It's ironic, I think, that the active voice clause, "Authors who 
> follow these
>> guidelines should incorporate this phrase" uses an uncapitalized 
>> "should,"
>> and I think it should be a "MUST."
>
>
> There's no irony here: this document intentionally does not use BCP 14
> key words, neither does 2119, and I think they should not.  I'd rather
> that BCP 14 not be self-referential.

While I don't have strong feelings whether this draft should use 2119 
keywords, I don't follow that line of reasoning. It's normal for RFCs to 
define terms, then use them. And for the record, 2119 does have at least 
one MUST (see section 6).

Ben (with no hats).