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

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 10 August 2016 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1708E12D548 for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 05:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HnIrPASwc6r4 for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 05:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4116312D1E0 for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 05:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o80so99899766wme.1 for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 05:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1ZBsN73duOzWdxEIhCwHD4Bcq+UKpnT2g3WdIOt6790=; b=Oun8/kKiExzEiDvZoFgKvEscyTCQ8Ysm9Srs3XncC5ygpsyeLfJoyh8XVzwrvoqrG6 s9h1f5R0EgSLbkesZyFkLvSWxcuzw//wvgp4ey8r2eBm3b2uVpG/H8bHbJeL/VV6ANMG nv7+1HXZRFY7xoHy06wAqpnFYVOZmTqE6Supi+M0i7Xxaz4iSPYC8JiHks2O8zE36Y31 3/RFXFZaBOCeUwTjVum1PaTD1L6+9pKobv0ayDIrQN1SPnIFXAPFfWyVBIj3o1qj/G7M YRbCN9JMnMGTL2LjbTx3SDjTAiOD5U6kLWOnOzlGXJf+MhKSGAF365GsDAV84o+YWNkF Ritg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1ZBsN73duOzWdxEIhCwHD4Bcq+UKpnT2g3WdIOt6790=; b=I9HMM/VZ/5yI3sAqgSRaOyQkRUtD4fIK4qmybIsQogbcfI7H8guqTUjvAPIBjA0W3p MRD+c76fWQhejSULm8xkA9HlZ8LFExMuTRZztu6uWkBYmX/pTSy7T88vdjOBOsB3w3Y9 pm33I9vUMct+ylyiUsr2VBZL+df6tvw/reyV39hnbVrY3M9qFTZLw4wyiGwlgpp2Q8xX itm/+81vPCozI/K2fIIxh76TI49ys5TZcs5xIfFeEKtcabyYDLtLfaCxMoppy94ObNyv /wwIgziuRKnTPDVYEfkRXyUDr7owQmYtKEgzK5aEEg3heTxRAi8mBKbQNa1pFR8G4IEP W3Fw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutOvGwVk3OlCfJLqv6b8DPZiUqCr1T4MRXp7blJz+horEKMk/qsfaRhBhB4cs4Vi4oxuiQ8iDHnPRQdvg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id f144mr613892lfd.53.1470831635640; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 05:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 05:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 08:19:54 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt
To: Stewart Bryant <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f20b82acaf50539b6ade7
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Barry Leiba <>, IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:20:39 -0000

I think the right approach to take with this document is not as an explicit
update to RFC 2119 text, but rather as a Talmudic commentary on RFC2119.
This document should do two things: it should help readers of old documents
who are unclear about what 2119 says, and it should be available as a
document that can be normatively reference by authors of new documents who
want more clarity than RFC2119 provides.

The document should be explicit that while it updates 2119, documents that
refer only to 2119 and not to this document are not updated: if this
document helps the reader to better understand the context in which the
RFC2119 keywords are used, great, but nothing more than that is intended.

For documents that do normatively reference this document and not just
RFC2119, the update is normative.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Stewart Bryant <>

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