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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

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/>