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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 11 August 2016 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 5EAF812D781 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 HdzOFK8KPshM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDA2512D791 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id f65so6337157wmi.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YiJrJdhybo6lGQ5SHNASuL0XEckmaEaHjAsBbGhzr58=; b=wyp/ya5+Lrf0oebBS3FxDn8Bmo/KOfB7aCzIVABKPjWfYIrQQ8GVTTOl9cMBy1tP1v 18IF5UAhEoK5fNvVvFy7d5T43D4ku2HLMsIimigy93Hc8nCQD0cou6uA97qNppjBumWc I4VxQ/HSIGOGb/2ptwORw2G6hB/tTCUr5JzRqyUqrn6d7qeKLO7AhHFz1F0wodQGEMmS bsqaLsqnEayMwiAxRIVn2Rxd7yNdTB6Opvz+6BxYYZfENj7PecivHrAhx+MRCxG7fEzm yTAhpTyn/KFZ9iaqijRIaF2vy+m6Hy/+wFvoVL+T2ckLNzwA8FwEM41P7VgwbZh8HI/D bwpg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YiJrJdhybo6lGQ5SHNASuL0XEckmaEaHjAsBbGhzr58=; b=i5CNY2+hJafPU6kf5DTK+8WMeqIxV20PeXRwSDZk/3OZJ8+qgJp+0zbrTThhTxtFik pQ4WlWbvlrTSSmRLrmx7EpmOJ4ApSFlY+O/0s37oq1Af3Md/xWIfpsiuQDhNJMqsOcAO VLpH6eMCQZuAXoawYC73kRqHwKMEViCt49YA6bgXpaPe9hJhk1inbWT7E7tQb68+EyOU mo0X09Fr4fbepQvoz9mBRp2H1JjdobLrE/g7JUgo81F4SQgsDtFN67eitMDP5J4Wi5Y9 FwzF1bh2bjYT4emvZdiI4wJf7QViyAsTP+f91MORZnTqb1z/VnHHWbmpFaF85ba0K7bt LNdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouveqv8lfUsXVLhdFfjXSkEOY3CcaOtBhoqJhXdn91USzukDDAD86pvll/0fFDFgsEGigQ/fDT0D4/pfCA==
X-Received: by 10.46.33.76 with SMTP id h73mr1719149ljh.41.1470929145562; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.93 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <031F4DFB-FDE8-464C-A40B-4070269D26E6@nostrum.com>
References: <147077254472.30640.13738163813175851232.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJLHx7ytgZqZ9zQXA3vVSU-pNggQQs+QiDnzQ4tBEH5VAQ@mail.gmail.com> <1701C0A2-CF98-43A9-A048-E72DA397412D@asgard.org> <CALaySJKpqbAaskT8GcC8EFBy4ouXbkVe6LJ68j-UyQ4syQSnkg@mail.gmail.com> <031F4DFB-FDE8-464C-A40B-4070269D26E6@nostrum.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:25:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1keesr9okANLVH_fWHmy0h6oSkzPePVz7vqDhF6ZHVBZg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1142c632361f1e0539cd6185
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UlD5wwm-apzrAHWMY1l-Lg5JL64>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.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: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:25:50 -0000

I don't think this document should be deprecating anything, but I think a
strong recommendation not to use SHALL would be entirely in order.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> On 10 Aug 2016, at 11:18, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
> It's ironic, I think, that the active voice clause, "Authors who follow
>> these
>>
>>> guidelines should incorporate this phrase" uses an uncapitalized
>>> "should,"
>>> and I think it should be a "MUST."
>>>
>>
>>
>> There's no irony here: this document intentionally does not use BCP 14
>> key words, neither does 2119, and I think they should not.  I'd rather
>> that BCP 14 not be self-referential.
>>
>
> While I don't have strong feelings whether this draft should use 2119
> keywords, I don't follow that line of reasoning. It's normal for RFCs to
> define terms, then use them. And for the record, 2119 does have at least
> one MUST (see section 6).
>
> Ben (with no hats).
>
>