Re: RFC2119 keywords in registration requirements

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* Julian Reschke wrote:
>On 2013-10-29 21:29, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>> seems to me to be completely reasonable to say MUST include the number of the RFC that describes
>> the protocol being registered (for example)

>But then:
>
>> 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.
>
>To me this indicates that we should keep them out of registrations 
>procedures.
>
>(I also note that the "MUST" in the text I quoted shouldn't been used if 
>the text followed its own advice :-).

You think there is no potential for causing harm in inappropriately
using these imperatives? I rather think there is. And having proper
information in registries is quite often necessary to achieve inter-
operation.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/