Re: RFC2119 keywords in registration requirements

["Bradner, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

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

Harvard University Information Technology
Innovation & Architecture
[phone]
1350 Mass Ave., Room 760
Cambridge, MA 02138
www.harvard.edu/huit

On Oct 29, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> 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)
>> 
>> Scott
> 
> 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 :-).
> 
> Best regards, Julian