Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

Hi Randy,


On 02/10/2017 17:37, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On 10/2/2017 7:18 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> This discussion may be conflating two issues:
>>
>> (i) Does RFC text have to use RFC2119 terms to be normative?
>> RFC 8174 categorically states that text can still be normative 
>> without using RFC 2119 terms.
>
> Thus it's clear that their usage is not necessarily necessary.
>
>> (ii) Should standards track documents use RFC 2119 terms?
>> If 93% of recently published standards track RFCs make use of RFC 
>> 2119 terms then that seems like a strong consistency argument to use 
>> them unless there is a good reason not to.
>
> I think RFC 2119 itself provides a fair counter-argument to the
> imposition of such a requirement.  RFC 2119 states that "[i]mperatives
> of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly."
> To use "with care" and "sparingly" seems contrary to the notion of
> employing them merely for "consistency."
I interpret this slightly differently.

If a standards track RFC has some text that should be interpreted in a 
way that matches (or perhaps is close) to the RFC 2119 language 
semantics then it is more consistent and less ambiguous to use RFC 2119 
terms since the vast majority of other RFCs are using it.  If nothing in 
the draft matches the RFC 2119 language then of course you don't need to 
cite it.

It might be interesting to look at the 7% of RFCs that don't use it and 
see if that was because it wasn't necessary, due to the authors choice, 
or some other reason.

Thanks,
Rob


>
> Randy
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> .
>