IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 01 August 2012 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 6B18311E8180 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.863
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.264, 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 43CrKnmYOQ-Q for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0FD411E817D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-40be.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [130.129.64.190]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E77422E1F4; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:27:56 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1485\))
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVDwx9JxGK=kRZV=-BiJNXmzJJuH7212QPKrv8t8GmdFnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:27:56 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E07E0004-8BE7-4897-8980-16DA41F75464@mnot.net>
References: <CADnDZ8-zqjf=e1RHp+pr_Jh4x=u5T_pY95U8i_ORRMLXtWLm_A@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVDwx9JxGK=kRZV=-BiJNXmzJJuH7212QPKrv8t8GmdFnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1485)
Cc: 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: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:28:06 -0000

+1 to Barry, well said.

On 01/08/2012, at 9:03 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
> discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
> thanking you.
> 
> 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.  Further, it's actively *harmful*.  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*.
> 
> Barry 

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email