IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 01 August 2012 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 AADFB11E836B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 p6B0m+RCyXM1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0574A11E8169 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q71HMrZh011252; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:22:53 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-11f1.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.17.241]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q71HMj3t011196 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:22:49 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Yoav Nir' <ynir@checkpoint.com>
References: <CADnDZ8-zqjf=e1RHp+pr_Jh4x=u5T_pY95U8i_ORRMLXtWLm_A@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVDwx9JxGK=kRZV=-BiJNXmzJJuH7212QPKrv8t8GmdFnA@mail.gmail.com> <034101cd7004$43758dd0$ca60a970$@olddog.co.uk> <D872E3E4-7DE6-4691-B76F-A70B4E5E1613@checkpoint.com>
In-Reply-To: <D872E3E4-7DE6-4691-B76F-A70B4E5E1613@checkpoint.com>
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:22:44 +0100
Message-ID: <039801cd700a$46cc2420$d4646c60$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0399_01CD7012.A8954710"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQLw+3MjyVCsgx/3v7ilGpHvBIxheAJ4IDYAAS9o544CPzf9nZTO523w
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: 'Barry Leiba' <barryleiba@computer.org>, 'ietf' <ietf@ietf.org>, 'Abdussalam Baryun' <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:23:06 -0000

Thanks Yoav,
 
I don't get a lot of citations for that one :-)
 
From: Yoav Nir [mailto:ynir@checkpoint.com] 
Sent: 01 August 2012 18:15
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: Barry Leiba; Abdussalam Baryun; ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
 
He meant "PILLAR OF SALT"
 
On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:



Barry,
 
Did you mean "bad" or "BAD"?
 
A
 
From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: 01 August 2012 17:04
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
 
I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
thanking you.
 
I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said.  This document is pointless, as
there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderstanding that it's
clarifying.  Further, it's actively *harmful*.  It's arguable that 2119 already
reserves too many words by giving them specific, normative meanings (SHALL *and*
MUST; SHOULD *and* RECOMMENDED).  Adding IF, THEN, and ELSE would not only be
unnecessary, but downright *bad*.
 
Barry 


Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email