IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] MUSTard in the IANA section

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Sat, 15 December 2007 07:49 UTC

Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3RmX-0007Jy-J1; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:49:57 -0500
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J3RmW-0007DR-6s for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:49:56 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3RmQ-0006e9-7D for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:49:50 -0500
Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.66]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3RmO-0006SI-1V for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:49:50 -0500
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=pzYsZZSg8ILnl0YQwU45Xzm1s0Wdxa6teiSgun91kBUV28sKfX2TNF8vj1uYUsgZ; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [64.105.136.48] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1J3RmN-0007FR-9H for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:49:47 -0500
Message-ID: <000801c83eef$653d9660$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <E1J27uQ-0002ca-3R@megatron.ietf.org> <007201c83c7b$0eae3140$6601a8c0@DGBP7M81>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] MUSTard in the IANA section
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:52:08 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888a4beb055f130b31a1521b7cb41be9ee7c5b302a06e153497350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 64.105.136.48
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@roadrunner.com>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:54 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] MUSTard in the IANA section 
...
> Consequently, it seems reasonable to me to use RFC 2119 "MUST" in some 
> of these requirements.  We are not saying that if IANA does not do this 
> or that, we will chop off their hands, but we are stating the fact that 
> it will adversely affect some part of the process.

This is indeed how the 2119 terms are generally understood.

> I don't claim to be an RFC 2119 lawyer or historian by any stretch, so 
> if there is some longstanding tradition that RFC 2119 "MUST" is 
> appropriate only for computers and demeaning when applied to humans, 
> then I apologize and stand corrected.
...

The use of the RFC 2119 terms to distinguish mandatory and optional
portions of a procedure is well understood, and I'd be surprised if
an IETF-affiliated human found them demeaning.  After all, they are
used in this way in RFC 2418, among others.

Randy
as ltru co-chair



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email