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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

That would be a satisfactory approach.

However I suspect that just as IDs still put Network Working Group in 
the top left corner, so I suspect  RFC2119 will be the normal reference 
used.

Stewart


On 10/08/2016 13:19, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 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 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     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
>
>
>