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

[James Polk <[e-mail]>]

At 12:05 PM 8/1/2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> > 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.
>
>It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify
>conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need.

normative language is for implementers, not education for users - at 
least as its primary goal. Implementations can be configured to 
comply and not comply with one or more RFCs, based on the needs of 
the customer and the desire of the implementer (i.e., vendor) to want 
the sale of their equipment to that customer. This fact is commonly 
misunderstood. Melinda has wise words

>Please note
>that "IF THEN" is reducing the number of words in the draft as well
>(more efficient). Please tell me what specification can specify a
>conditional situation in less words than "IF, THEN". Many RFC don't
>follow the easy way properly,
>
> > Further, it's actively *harmful*.
>
>I implemented some RFC that don't specify "if, then", and it was
>harmful for me. I don't know what kind of harmful that the update will
>make, please explain by an example. Do you mean harmful to the
>reviewers or to the draft authors. Please note that we should make the
>internet a better place for ALL not only for authors.
>
> > 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*.
> >
>
>It is necessary, and the words in RFC2119 are not many if we compare
>with our RFCs pages.
>
>I thank you for your comments,
>
>AB