Re: Minimum Implementation Requirements (Was: 2119bis)

I'm just winging this.

What do you think about having a Conformance Level model ?

   Conformance Level 1 (CL1) - MUST [NOT] - minimum requirement
   Conformance Level 2 (CL2) - CL1, SHOULD [NOT]
   Conformance Level 3 (CL3) - CL1, CL2, MAY [NOT]

It allows author to declare in the RFC (abstract, intro perhaps) the 
level of conformance he expects, i.e. "This Protocol only works best 
with CL2 implementators."  When an implementator sees that, it might 
help in its decision making process on how much is supported.  This is 
also help remove the stigma of existing implementations being labeled 
non-compliant, which quite frankly, those are "fighting words!" :)

Of course, out of the gate, all protocols must be a Conformance Level 
1 protocol :)

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Hi, Melinda,
> 
>> Can anybody point to an incident in which lack of clarity around
>> 2119 language caused problems, and it was determined that 2119
>> itself was the problem and not authors or editors being careless?
>>
>> Melinda
> 
> My recollection is that, at least since the early 2000s, most "problems" 
> were encountered with Last Call/Gen-ART (and probably other review team) 
> comments taking forms like
> 
> "Why is this SHOULD not a MUST?", or the ever-popular
> "Why is this Informational draft using 2119 language??
> 
> There are probably variants I don't remember (I stopped being an active 
> Gen-ART reviewer when I began serving on the IAB, and I've slept since 
> then).
> 
> In my comments on 2119bis 
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68885.html), I was 
> suggesting that clarifications might head off some of these recurring 
> conversations.
> 
> At this point, I would be fine with a draft (of any flavor - obsoleting, 
> updating, or just an IESG statement) that addresses whether these 
> questions are reasonable questions. I don't have a deep need to add the 
> (mostly reasonable) suggestions that have been made for new terms.
> 
> If the IESG thinks that's a reasonable thing to do, they can make a call 
> about the particular flavor, just fine ...
> 
> Spencer
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf