Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06: (with DISCUSS)

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro,

Thanks!

Bob


> On May 10, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Bob, that works for me.
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> On 5/9/17, 10:37 AM, "Bob Hinden" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Alvaro,
> 
> Based on your Discuss, I am planning to add:
> 
>   Note: This document is an update to [RFC1981] that was published
>   prior to [RFC2119] being published.  Consequently while it does use
>   "should/must" style language in upper and lower case, the document
>   does not cite the RFC2119 definitions.  This update does not change
>   that.
> 
> To the Introduction of this document.  It should appear in the next published version of this draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 8, 2017, at 11:55 PM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06: Discuss
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> I'm putting in this point as a DISCUSS because I think that the current
>> text may be confusing and vague.
>> 
>> As others have pointed out, this document includes rfc2119-like language,
>> both capitalized and not.  I realize that rfc1981 was published before
>> rfc2119 and that no expectation on the language existed then.  However,
>> we're at a point in time where not only rfc2119 is in place, but
>> draft-leiba-rfc2119-update (which clarifies that only uppercase language
>> has special meaning) is in AUTH48.  I think that this leads to the
>> possibility that the average reader may interpret the requirements in
>> this document in a way that it wasn't intended.
>> 
>> While I would prefer that this document be consistent (and either use
>> capitalized rfc2119 language as intended, OR, not used it at all), I
>> understand the intent of not changing some of the original text.  I would
>> be happy with a note like this one: "Note:  This document is an update to
>> RFC1981 that was published prior to RFC2119 being published.
>> Consequently while it does use "should/must" style language in upper and
>> lower case, the document does not cite the RFC2119 definitions.  This
>> update does not change that."   [I borrowed this text from the the INTDIR
>> review thread. [1]]
>> 
>> I find that including a note in the Shepherd's write-up is not enough
>> because the average reader/implementer will not consult it.
>> 
>> 
>> [1]
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/bVH_0ydVdGssOiszJKhQXLYPuXY/?qid=4000f8a954b226266f429842911101f5
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>