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

"Randall Gellens (IETF)" <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Sat, 13 August 2016 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
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 2D92D12D127 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 06:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.146
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247] 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 N6FpxEQqW2XU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 06:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C772312D0F5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 06:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.12.15.135] (127.0.0.1) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Sat, 13 Aug 2016 06:24:53 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-62D17EAD-DAF2-410E-AD8A-CAC2B8CD9D1A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt
From: "Randall Gellens (IETF)" <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
In-Reply-To: <379B29D6-2C56-4EB1-BA50-4740A605C9D0@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 14:05:20 +0100
Message-Id: <1F51808A-374F-478B-8036-902E079F53D7@randy.pensive.org>
References: <147077254472.30640.13738163813175851232.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJLHx7ytgZqZ9zQXA3vVSU-pNggQQs+QiDnzQ4tBEH5VAQ@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D9240CC47@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <f30c2fb9-2f84-4ff1-8bd2-f70fe4201838@gmail.com> <379B29D6-2C56-4EB1-BA50-4740A605C9D0@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (13F69)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZWcwhCIBdVFDUKYNz7MP88pICkY>
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: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 13:24:55 -0000

I've written text such as "For clients, support for X is REQUIRED."

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 13, 2016, at 12:13 AM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11 Aug 2016, at 6:44, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
> Optional is useful in a requirements RFC.
> 
> Feature x is REQUIRED
> 
> Feature y is OPTIONAL
> 
> One last (and perhaps fruitless) attempt to keep this section and deprecate the adjectives:
> 
> Using REQUIRED and OPTIONAL results in exactly the problem of using passive voice anywhere: REQUIRED by whom? OPTIONAL for whom? If you say, "A MUST do X and B MAY do Y", it is perfectly clear which actor is responsible (and in network protocols there are inevitably at least 2). If you say "X is REQUIRED and Y is OPTIONAL", you'll end up needing more text to explain the actors and their roles.
> 
> Using REQUIRED and OPTIONAL is lazy. It makes specs less clear. They ought to be dropped.
> 
> pr
> -- 
> Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478