Re: RFC2119 keywords in registration requirements

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-10-30 12:11, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2013-10-29 21:29, Bradner, Scott wrote:
>>> seems to me to be completely reasonable to say MUST include the number of the RFC that describes
>>> the protocol being registered (for example)
>
>> But then:
>>
>>> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
>>>
>>>     Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
>>>     and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
>>>     actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
>>>     potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For
>>>     example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
>>>     on implementors where the method is not required for
>>>     interoperability.
>>
>> To me this indicates that we should keep them out of registrations
>> procedures.
>>
>> (I also note that the "MUST" in the text I quoted shouldn't been used if
>> the text followed its own advice :-).
>
> You think there is no potential for causing harm in inappropriately
> using these imperatives? I rather think there is. And having proper
> information in registries is quite often necessary to achieve inter-
> operation.

Yes, but does using RFC2119 keywords here actually improve the 
registrations?

Anyway, I'll leave this to the IESG / our AD to make a choice.

Best regards, Julian