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

Stewart Bryant <> Wed, 10 August 2016 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA2F12D856 for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AMGh13JbDrc8 for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 513BF12D7A6 for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o80so97971737wme.1 for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WkQEYfp4Pw40mm9supv72Sx0PSdhOSHQluFTQDM41H0=; b=BJ79xvBhgpHklnr/uuGpxPPMlcAnVjqYvraN0b31cMWUNnTi9/M20XMtXFN5HrLRuN RFFudlV3SbbyjJn0LixszUDaKhs6oh9zcirhbt+3UMd+UfwXs0xaJ8LNogvPshaevmOm vCWrnt6JntlYCnqimm9YfpyItiyckQ6cWXih7KNdyA+eO6ZoXGh5lBMxsoklLimjjL6R Mc1HFta1+5vNSfK3QgUPUKAxNFe+jkRugu2Bu96Kht/tBjFdLJ+FrD6sE0vEhUmCvKjn O5sNkWXsb752lxKW4mZL3xEd6JdKhhd+g1SoHA7Rtw5vQu9naEl29xX++g5NmVe7S2HY k/bw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WkQEYfp4Pw40mm9supv72Sx0PSdhOSHQluFTQDM41H0=; b=eBSMZ8RvyUD8S4N7NTb1TTgLvd8pLyt4c/1oYeCctk1OCY3RQ8FVtXW6x+NzoLiNW+ 0caxOUCBGzdPkAnGq1mUiOhlEgVdOi6zEfgxD/XSIFhtnwkPebIKKgeHtd19y8t+Y97T m0wjWX65AC4AaNunDHO1WgFvNk+IUa6O68xzVWkbnn9nBi1b7wLBZlNAOEMur5K0O13D +WPwvLPATUTeLTHEV1Xe3+JqLACbPCchrwfZCp0HdkH2a3HOrcssBSeiKVIi+fHVlt4P 59jcbT6OPKGHckx6fERVoSsXKAs/BSKe9KXGvOCI/BL35+/TnWflLeB4+tsvYsVUA6KT 47nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousqwsp8BiSsighh3Ze+JI0/5PmjBrQoi5jZvEQARu+PKN2DnRvrZKbSgcc/f6r4nQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id jg7mr3555450wjb.166.1470829665782; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id hy3sm42627307wjb.8.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt
To: Barry Leiba <>, IETF discussion list <>
References: <> <>
From: Stewart Bryant <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:47:40 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:47:48 -0000

Having thought a little more about this, I am wondering about
unintended consequences in the 5K documents that we have
written since RFC2119 was published.

If we effectively change RFC2119 as we propose, is there
a danger that readers will incorrectly interpret old text
with new semantics. T

I have no idea whether anything of significance will occur
but considering the thought put into terms like SHOULD
there exists a risk that would be mitigated if we picked
a new RFC number whereupon the reader would know
which definition the writers and reviewers were using.

- Stewart