Re: An observation on draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-01

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 07 February 2017 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 CEAEA129D71 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:39:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TXrEf60tuwPj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:39:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0C30129D14 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 71416 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2017 16:39:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2017 16:39:18 -0000
Date: 7 Feb 2017 16:38:56 -0000
Message-ID: <20170207163856.9667.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: An observation on draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-01
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJL-kfjQO=P3aVWwu6zEz6y5k7bngqEf0eqShWjAKAZ7Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SmzgIz9rY5G92B7-s7FfQnk4IEs>
Cc: barryleiba@computer.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 16:39:21 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <CALaySJL-kfjQO=P3aVWwu6zEz6y5k7bngqEf0eqShWjAKAZ7Ug@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>In fact, we *do* often (though not always) cite update documents when
>we're explicitly talking about a feature that was updated.  I think we
>do it when calling the reader's attention to the update is
>particularly important.

Agreed, since this update is not backward compatible.  It would have
been a lot cleaner to replace 2119 with, say, 8119, but I can see why
you didn't want to open that particular institutional size can of
worms.

> even with "MUST", the BCP 14 meaning
>explicitly says that it's a protocol requirement that affects
>interoperability or security, and we do seem to think that making that
>distinction is important.

That is surprisingly unclear to a lot of people, particularly ones not
deeply embedded in the IETF.  We know that MUST means "do this if you
want to interoperate" but I know people who imagine it means "do this
or else."

R's,
John
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EARECAB0WIQSVwJVU9sGa3lHFnZyQSIVF14L+RQUCWJn4MwAKCRCQSIVF14L+
RaGVAKClNRLd3etWBc66VVYpcrBf0AEzYgCgiKewpNuqVcXB0fn9J8DWc49c1c0=
=O3f4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----