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

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
>> <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
>> <mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>> 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: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen |
>>     Germany
>>     Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/
>>     <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod