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

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Mon, 02 October 2017 11:05 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9F213458A for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 04:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5tGYHwL80J6y for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 04:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4956134292 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 04:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFF4F68; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:05:07 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.217]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id hTp1Y7DVYDCr; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:05:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:05:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3A1200FD; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:05:07 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XAXo9bVHF4LC; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:05:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FBE200FC; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:05:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 46B24411E1FF; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:05:04 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 13:05:04 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, netmod@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20171002110504.d6kscxoot3nb3c3a@elstar.local>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, netmod@ietf.org
References: <36ba3d4b-1ae1-0666-12cf-db41e172924b@cisco.com> <75739d75-da96-b340-2403-d0949ac54ed7@labn.net> <19134054-D52E-4A6D-992A-A47F365557AD@juniper.net> <2891bd09-0e0d-415c-2714-15141a293e42@cisco.com> <D14158EF-77F4-4E0A-9A06-213F5CF04647@juniper.net> <011d01d32d77$c8e0a500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <9c0d8394-b2a4-180a-2454-8955c1721423@labn.net> <003801d32e3f$ba625460$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <920d0500-e7ea-66ff-5124-a025a438dbac@cisco.com> <15edcab6a58.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <15edcab6a58.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170714 (1.8.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/loTU9Ul5YbhW7pie85zz_v0PimM>
Subject: Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 11:05:16 -0000

Lou,

the conclusion is that we add RFC 2119 here and there but I disagree
with the notion that normative text needs RFC 2119 language, i.e.,
that text that does not use RFC 2119 language is not normative. See
the pointers to the RFCs that I have provided. Now you want to make
this even a rule for all future WG docs so I strongly oppose to that.

/js

On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 06:39:35AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
> Benoit,
> 
> I think this and related topic was closed with the conclusion of sticking
> with 2119 language for normative text in current and future WG docs. We
> certainly can add this sentence as well.
> 
> Lou
> 
> 
> On October 2, 2017 5:11:20 AM Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > To avoid any confusion, just clearly mention it.
> >      "This appendix is normative | informative"
> > No need to debate for hours on this.
> > 
> > Regards, Benoit
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 6:06 PM
> > > 
> > > > On 9/14/2017 12:36 PM, t.petch wrote:
> > > > > Appendices are Normative if they say that they are Normative.  The
> > > > > default is that they are not so say that they are and they are.
> > > This is
> > > > > well established practice.
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > My memory (I haven't checked recently) is there is nothing in or
> > > > defined process that says if an Appendix is normative or not. Other
> > > > SDOs certainly have formal definitions here. Within the IETF, my view
> > > > has been that if an appendix includes RFC2119 language, it is
> > > > normative. Actually, strictly speaking, any text in a Standards Track
> > > > RFC that doesn't include RFC2119 language is just informative.
> > > Lou
> > > 
> > > Try RFC4910.
> > > 
> > > '   This appendix is normative.'
> > > 
> > > and not a SHOULD or a MUST in sight.
> > > 
> > > Tom Petch
> > > 
> > > > Lou
> > > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netmod mailing list
> > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > > .
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
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/>