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

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

> I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said.  This document is pointless,
> as there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderstanding
> that it's clarifying.

It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify
conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need. Please note
that "IF THEN" is reducing the number of words in the draft as well
(more efficient). Please tell me what specification can specify a
conditional situation in less words than "IF, THEN". Many RFC don't
follow the easy way properly,

> Further, it's actively *harmful*.

I implemented some RFC that don't specify "if, then", and it was
harmful for me. I don't know what kind of harmful that the update will
make, please explain by an example. Do you mean harmful to the
reviewers or to the draft authors. Please note that we should make the
internet a better place for ALL not only for authors.

> It's arguable
> that 2119 already reserves too many words by giving them specific,
> normative meanings (SHALL *and* MUST; SHOULD *and* RECOMMENDED).  Adding
> IF, THEN, and ELSE would not only be unnecessary, but downright *bad*.
>

It is necessary, and the words in RFC2119 are not many if we compare
with our RFCs pages.

I thank you for your comments,

AB