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

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 10 August 2016 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4046312D559 for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=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 WK2jViCmGGeZ for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93A1712D7ED for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t7so42553893qkh.0 for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=E1avvSKRYI/AHtPxJYVsWlC5sF+sAPpmpQF/7kkMyHs=; b=N3N5Hv8p5ksF2FTPVrlkVUyodQLxVxFymG/8CFAalUpPbgBNZeh/RLfJ0njM/OJMxZ v6Oa0IqZNSHYarP27eEVYHL6e+01FmoJGWuLEkEi68yvLIT1Wjcg3ueGpKw8/Brabw16 jYTisRsYu0/ZUQ3McC04Gk3lPrqv3QJN0Af8w50XJLPBCG8h33FietyEZMcdmrSFCFqj hiNGC+CICWKXQGbs5rDXJ3q6P1GZgju/anGb2PZ8jSOZyiGUPkgGRJhqwD0AlFlwarJg PLDh+17IsvWKXGiSkDQb3BkDiNrbWRsjV6mWGtLeSDjO+MadhrHhnKH68dpmj88+RKNp 4gjg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=E1avvSKRYI/AHtPxJYVsWlC5sF+sAPpmpQF/7kkMyHs=; b=iKygr8AnBKzQmDgsHg61MSzRTrQn0tVhqndG3ZLQEcqxTFVXGbdW4oLwMVXqDE/bxI w4brQ22tW7iO0GeWM6RO6KQhNTzeCOtwxLp7tOGtvXoK2+kxIFBMJQaaTjzrAn8ucW/p Ha2Bbo3Yo6ctNtsHs29gveHaPdvcDP9umqlFxWjkvYPmN2qWaK13AcQ7Q+XMMASIGkVM QLop9rl2ss5Oxqs7M3nHBWaEKb6yD5eJ6+r4k/5X4Q1VRwFCurDMcH7/iGcBo3HAi1mN kV8TeON2wzCUeFKMeKfeeWc6nuIvQNK1IA5DRdijLm+xiSyaUdT4ogkW172j7GjypkbV WyVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoous56XJMUECLVmPu0mdEHq0EOOCm9KGLslaE8+If2fg/SY4PAPuU6HB8IItHNcCsLEwG0acU0XuETTudHA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 80mr3997272qkr.208.1470834757753; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 08:12:36 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: D8853TdgknCIj2g5nUtT5G239WI
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt
To: Michael Richardson <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 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 13:12:50 -0000

> So as I understand it, documents which adhere to rfc2119-update will
> cite BCP14 and the RFCXXXX which this document will have?
> or will it cite RFC2119 and RFCXXXX?
> Are you suggesting that we should be citing BCP14 though?

Is there really something unclear about the boilerplate update in Section 2?:

   Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase
   near the beginning of their document:

      The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and
      "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
      BCP 14 [RFC2119],[RFCxxxx] when, and only when, they appear
      capitalized, as shown.

That is suggesting that we *call* this "BCP 14", and that the
citations be to RFC 2119 and to this document.  That makes it clear
that 2119 applies, as updated by this.

> It seems that retaining section 1.1 might be worth it.

Perhaps, though I don't think it really has archival value.  Do others
think it should be retained?

> XML format and screen readers.
> I have not looked deeply into the final RFC-format XML spec.
> Does it already markup SHOULD/MUST/MAY in some useful way?
> Could it?  If it does, should this document point out this?

That's a good point, and I will look into what this might need to say
with respect to the XML markup.