Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates]

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

Lou,

I do not have statistics, just some RFC text:

- RFC 8174 section 2 first bullet in the === NEW === text says "These
  words can be used as defined here, but using them is not required.
  Specifically, normative text does not require the use of these key
  words.  They are used for clarity and consistency when that is
  what's wanted, but a lot of normative text does not use them and is
  still normative."

- I can also point to RFC 2119 section 6 which says "they MUST only be
  used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit
  behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting
  retransmisssions)".

/js

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 05:50:30PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
> Juergen,
> 
> I guess our experiences at the IETF differ.  Certainly RFCs I authored
> prior to 2219 (being published) were loose in their use of
> capitalization and, frankly, sometimes open to interpretation as to what
> was normative and what was informative.  But soon very soon after, most
> of us switched over to citing RFC2119 and using its language to
> distinguish between the two -- and I think this truly helped readers and
> implementers know what they had to do to conform with and what they
> didn't to ensure interoperable implementations. I'm really not sure  how
> 20 years later, the use of RFC2119 to identify normative language can be
> considered anything but the norm, let alone a proposed 'new norm'.
> 
> FWIW of the 3198 RFCs with a 'standards'  category published after
> RFC2119, 1995 reference RFC2119.  In the last 5 years the numbers are
> 961 and 892 respectively.
> 
> Lou
> 
> 
> On 9/27/2017 4:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > Lou,
> >
> > text is normative without RFC 2119 language. There clearly is no such
> > 'norm' unless people try to make it a new norm and I am strictly
> > opposed to that. If the reason to add RFC 2119 language is to comply
> > to a new norm being created, I have to object. If you want such a norm
> > to be created, write an I-D and run it through the process.
> >
> > /js
> >
> > PS: Sorry co-authors I promised to be silent but somehow I can't let
> >     this reasoning go without seriously questioning it.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:20:13PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
> >> I think this goes to if this, or any, draft is a proposed standard or
> >> not. In other words, if it specifies any behavior that for which
> >> interoperability between independent implementations is the objective. 
> >> My general view is that in a Proposed Standard RFC, if it impacts
> >> interoperability, the text should be normative and an RFC should use
> >> 2119 language to identify such normative text.  I accept that this is
> >> not strictly required by IETF process, but it has become the norm for PS
> >> track RFCs produced today  -- and I see no reason to not follow IETF norm.
> >>
> >> In the context of this draft , as I read it, at least section 5.1 and
> >> some portions of 4.
> >>
> >> Lou
> >>
> >> On 9/27/2017 12:28 PM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >>> The authors discussed this, and we will close this issue
> >>> (https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues/14 - title: Does the
> >>> NMDA architecture need to use RFC 2119 language?) by adding RFC 2119
> >>> text to the document, which will probably be best illustrated with an
> >>> updated draft revision.
> >>>
> >>> For the record, the majority of the authors had the view that RFC 2119
> >>> language does not particularly aid readability in this architecture
> >>> document.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Rob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 16/09/2017 10:56, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> >>>> <[e-mail]
> >>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>     On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >>>>     > Hi,
> >>>>     >
> >>>>     > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update
> >>>>     to RFC 7950.
> >>>>     > I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in
> >>>>     a standards
> >>>>     > track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative
> >>>>     text,
> >>>>     > especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior.
> >>>>     >
> >>>>
> >>>>     RFC 8174:
> >>>>
> >>>>        o  These words can be used as defined here, but using them is not
> >>>>           required.  Specifically, normative text does not require
> >>>>     the use
> >>>>           of these key words.  They are used for clarity and consistency
> >>>>           when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text
> >>>>     does not
> >>>>           use them and is still normative.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So what?
> >>>> Existing YANG specifications use RFC 2119 terms.
> >>>> This draft uses those terms, just with lower-case.
> >>>> Either way, the new YANG rules seem half-baked and not ready
> >>>> for standardization.
> >>>>
> >>>>  
> >>>>
> >>>>     /js
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy
> >>>>  
> >>>>
> >>>>     --
> >>>>     Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> >>>>     Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen |
> >>>>     Germany
> >>>>     Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/
> >>>>     <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> netmod mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>