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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 17 May 2017 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C77129B7A; Wed, 17 May 2017 03:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 JZPTgcDc0YR6; Wed, 17 May 2017 03:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDC3B129B3A; Wed, 17 May 2017 03:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10015; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495015274; x=1496224874; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=r2d1D+5jsKx1RaB4WHEdO6sHeUpwvoi991ElDfq7sRU=; b=j5vQLmMNEfWmswFuB17+Rne+zMTRN+e5x5D8irnCs7oZBFlUw4LE5Swy sYFaVsPd6bGYUEeSSBPjvCIIoZ7ZXm5HupTqgENad8W6pDTqMobMCC0tP KEv/pNZwBwa1/yIl3svzb94EWATFjmjRF5NdtmXEq3Yv+0B0a08KMhmwv A=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.38,353,1491264000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="28436049"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 May 2017 10:01:13 +0000
Received: from [10.82.217.158] (rtp-vpn3-412.cisco.com [10.82.217.158]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4HA1CKl015865; Wed, 17 May 2017 10:01:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06: (with DISCUSS)
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org>, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <149427694020.22664.10344820301651708437.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5DE424DC-F18D-417B-B547-62F49A04B6C1@gmail.com> <2E927CD3-327A-4160-88D9-B901D9D532EA@cisco.com> <A89C9702-E841-482F-8248-87AC710202F4@gmail.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <7726dc86-daf7-6fa1-e956-9238fee39226@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 06:01:11 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A89C9702-E841-482F-8248-87AC710202F4@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------ECF233A514031C16C2C90144"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/rntCy0FXE3ZNHOE43t7JlKrr_vo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 10:06:41 -0000

Dear all,

I've seen the resolution on Alvara's DISCUSS.
Looking at 
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-07.txt, 
there are so MUST, SHOULD, MAY modified to their lower case respective 
names that I wonder...
Instead of going this easier path, shouldn't we have use the RFC 2119 
keywords all over the place and create a clear spec according to today's 
"standard", read RFC 2119 keywords.

Btw draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis doesn't use any RFC2119 keywords (which 
is weird these days) and doesn't contain a note such as:

       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.

At least, we should target consistency.

Regards, Benoit
> Alvaro,
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob
>
>
>> On May 10, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Bob, that works for me.
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>> On 5/9/17, 10:37 AM, "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden@gmail.com> 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 <aretana@cisco.com> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>