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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 11 August 2016 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 A5A6B12D1D3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.147
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 a9PF8jM4psge for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7C7312B019 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1bXdvN-0001Dz-UV; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 20:32:41 -0400
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 20:32:36 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt
Message-ID: <AE84343B67A3457F2048F2FC@JcK-HP8200>
In-Reply-To: <53083879-a5ae-8fb1-b34f-99358b215020@bbiw.net>
References: <147077254472.30640.13738163813175851232.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJLHx7ytgZqZ9zQXA3vVSU-pNggQQs+QiDnzQ4tBEH5VAQ@mail.gmail.c om> <CA+9kkMC_hb_BWM5iEpvaWBQY_QsDBZcJDGC9WdcD_O+KHX=64g@mail.gmail.com> <tslmvklk571.fsf@mit.edu> <defc83cb-72a8-f64f-658e-256d7ed76b27@dcrocker.net> <tslinv9k3bq.fsf@mit.edu> <A870981938AE4F1E224A7455@JcK-HP8200> <53083879-a5ae-8fb1-b34f-99358b215020@bbiw.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/m7cMQMMba328CtJOzZnniGFNruc>
Cc: 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: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:32:44 -0000


--On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 14:24 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dcrocker@bbiw.net> wrote:

> On 8/10/2016 2:09 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> I'd even favor some text that
>> discourages the use of the lower-case forms except when the
>> meaning (normative status) is clear from context or the
>> alternatives would be really awkward.
> 
> That sounds appealing.  Except that it has no objective or
> even reliable basis for its application.

First, I tried to make it clear that it was advice to authors,
not any sort of normative requirement, so I'm not even sure what
a presumed requirement for an "objective or reliable basis..."
would mean in that context.

Second, and equally important, when last I checked, we still had
an RFC Editor Function at the end of the pipe and that process
is charged with editorial clarity and quality of documents.  If
they have a guideline like the one I suggested and see
lower-case forms used where they might be confusing, I'd
expected them to either fix them or at least negotiate with the
author(s) and relevant stream.  Absent any guidelines, I think
the evidence is that their response is "stream problem, we don't
need to worry about it" and the confusion goes into the final
document.

best,
    john