IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 02 August 2012 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 4152521F8683 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.487
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JHMG8GKY1pzz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB8421F8682 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-4475.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-4475.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.68.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q72EEoor068826 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:14:51 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <501A8B5B.2070609@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:14:51 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
References: <CADnDZ8-zqjf=e1RHp+pr_Jh4x=u5T_pY95U8i_ORRMLXtWLm_A@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVDwx9JxGK=kRZV=-BiJNXmzJJuH7212QPKrv8t8GmdFnA@mail.gmail.com> <CADnDZ8-6iTjav+utqDOXriKc3FUVesHAy0CD5FtFQjrWDMvuWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPv4CP-LBGVPn9O5N1HmbUqw8H7dpK66q7JEcrYA_Sd395giCA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPv4CP-LBGVPn9O5N1HmbUqw8H7dpK66q7JEcrYA_Sd395giCA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:14:51 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 02 Aug 2012 14:14:58 -0000

On 8/1/12 10:48 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
> <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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,
A Change to the interpretation of normative language does not 
retroactively apply to existing documents.
>> Yes but that's an editing issue.  Go look at how process documentation
>> and state machines are handled in serious protocol RFCs.  Some do use
>> if/then in a formal way, but some are just informative.  The purpose
>> of 2119 is clarity of terminology.  Everyone knows what "if" and
>> "then" mean - your concern is how they are used.  The way to fix that
>> is in the particular drafts you have an issue with.
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email