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

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

Hi,



On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[e-mail]> 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.
>
>

It is quite common for Standards Track documents to use RFC 2119 terms.
The only new norm being set here is that the RD draft mixes architecture and
normative YANG/protocol behavior together.

If this was an Informational RFC that just discussed architecture,
then I would agree the RFC 2119 terms are not needed.



> /js
>
>
Andy



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