IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC2119 keywords in registration requirements

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 29 October 2013 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 3D42F11E814C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.507, 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 xSjlLHiWBSQq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E6F11E818D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([93.217.127.91]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M5r89-1Vr7Ao3XtR-00xpe8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:49:00 +0100
Message-ID: <52701F38.7070506@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:48:56 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Bradner, Scott" <sob@harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: RFC2119 keywords in registration requirements
References: <527018FD.2010405@gmx.de> <A8B2401F-4EB0-4373-BA62-C9E9DF2E601D@harvard.edu> <52701D1D.3030004@gmx.de> <15826A6D-1978-4501-AA83-FCD1E6B54213@harvard.edu>
In-Reply-To: <15826A6D-1978-4501-AA83-FCD1E6B54213@harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:2RuiK1crc2ePmpnHORD9Zm/f+J8rQ6V2DZVoE28q/2nxgeW2RKp JxWzDBypgKuEYQwrR6nZoEuf8h3gWGYHwjLUXbGBEo2me6FrsGjp2ScBqbmuFadXiMsQGYa Ldgmkcuut0aKQl2BOvxcnVKgpwwWr+LRDCgY5tGA7G9n+VK+au5UMpEvF6/QX+Y7pVfugQi 7iZ8MwuBwGya87MMe/BPQ==
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:49:07 -0000

On 2013-10-29 21:46, Bradner, Scott wrote:
> see rfc 2418 page 3 as well as RFC 2434 page 3 for an example of non-protocol uses of 2119 terms
>
> fwiw - I have seen 2119 terms used in registration type RFCs for rather many years
> I think it is too late to unwind that clock
>
> Scott
>
> Scott Bradner

Well yes, I've seen that too.

But there *is* confusion about whether it's the right approach, and it 
would be really cool if there was some consistency with respect to this.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email