Re: My two cents on draft-leiba-rfc2119-update

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Wed, 10 August 2016 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.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 30AD712D83E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 0j658P3f-_Fx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x231.google.com (mail-pa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A531127078 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x231.google.com with SMTP id ti13so17946511pac.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=L0ogWWUYYxzQc7yut/XrGHhZt/pUt55qyKtRm7+H558=; b=XBiFApzYD7ihfWZNg3rB3Z2oaxhsUBDtHlGaiTVaXJkgmvHV1s0h7xV195nFSJbqH3 p87kvzqCjSdcnS+l7HmENIwZHsf5ZhRUSDPa9yzKgtXzvs+SQzOh/q86ky+xlQC5VKi/ kgkgKwNHAWzehuSsulcIkwUZT22urfEs1gQ9BUlg78NMD6PF/cxxlGuP9CmXcljScGCQ PHkxCofLkd91ToY6hLbrRuG63j5SwLKa1Cg17x+YwJSdbH8xF5dsXRccnp632NRGs4mV XKQeNqj76XNQjtAQAGt36jP+IHAimZ5SOGA4H5fClGZ9m82wcFElWRx0TjhAAshkpO5M yllw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=L0ogWWUYYxzQc7yut/XrGHhZt/pUt55qyKtRm7+H558=; b=DreAXkQu5x26z9/HCqTos3botxQa4hJlwsutuIAZ8hnXWdeNF72F/MsVNAmYcx2BWR vuJoj77jVX1qNBL5QN2feuZXzH4/l8koJTkOoJyQxunf2cR7za0tIH3x69h0cl6sn9tO 7SONpDpIZgFJi8Bpgxrk04KTJO3m0Y5bVXgQSr50StW45YtLN7Du5x54muxwo01/FrlW 0gWF4YpHicGUP0hxY6X0OgxnpHJGGerw5WuWX158ejOnGl2RxIYB9IQ3tQb0T7w+c9ed hOPqyKlYZeo3W5DnwYj/XGCGe4m4eY7ChOY3anANrwovqDeYurZksifqXaZmGUZD74tn tKyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvjUyOSfW75hpv/vHuO3VvonAc/Y/MHNkJzCel1w/IyssBC373PdZ0MfLdpRg9PYw==
X-Received: by 10.66.136.74 with SMTP id py10mr9521030pab.114.1470852231588; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (216-67-63-29-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.63.29]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id q14sm65595776pfi.76.2016.08.10.11.03.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: My two cents on draft-leiba-rfc2119-update
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
References: <0f2001d1f324$7efe43e0$7cfacba0$@olddog.co.uk> <CALaySJLpmBGxORq-q-LHoWaxq2ZdQeMqUD36j-EapJj1oAJn8A@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mqgYA6-bW4WOU3o+LL-F=Hbhx+zpdJ1+vV5fMwqNDNzA@mail.gmail.com> <348c86d0-63a7-45ea-8be4-6791be19ae3b@gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kBhtHx=twSdhPmNa8SQrdB7uRptYDKoPQAkc6SfX6Hbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <81490860-905a-32c2-9936-ceceea580c50@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:03:47 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1kBhtHx=twSdhPmNa8SQrdB7uRptYDKoPQAkc6SfX6Hbw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DdkpCkfnmEvU0iN3nuwB4Dxs8JmPtGGhg"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vdCleiE_g-30cX8U_0kw8izbh68>
Cc: ietf <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: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 18:03:54 -0000

On 8/10/16 9:33 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Repeat discussions waste time.   

Not much, I don't think.  I certainly cannot think of
an instance where a document has been anything other than
trivially delayed by a discussion about normative language.
And of course there are serious discussions about whether
something should be mandatory or recommended, and this
document really doesn't help those at all.

I suppose my broader point is that less-than-useful process
documents waste time, as well, and they clog up the
document stream.  I'm afraid I tend to view documents like
this as contributing to our gradual but steady metamorphosis
into a conventional, process-bound standards body.

> Our review process is not very
> robust--a lot of things slip through the cracks.   

Indeed they do, but typically not 2119 mistakes.  I have
seen an awful lot of secdir and opsdir reviews go through
that don't have any useful security or operational review
but which have caught tons of nits.

Melinda