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

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

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
> 
> 
> 
>