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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Juergen,

Thanks for the "interesting" discussion.  I really do appreciate the authors adding the 2119 language even though they are unconvinced of it's value.  

Lou

On 9/27/2017 6:03 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Lou,
>
> I do not have statistics, just some RFC text:
>
> - RFC 8174 section 2 first bullet in the === NEW === text says "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."
>
> - I can also point to RFC 2119 section 6 which says "they MUST only be
>   used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit
>   behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting
>   retransmisssions)".
>
> /js
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 05:50:30PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Juergen,
>>
>> I guess our experiences at the IETF differ.  Certainly RFCs I authored
>> prior to 2219 (being published) were loose in their use of
>> capitalization and, frankly, sometimes open to interpretation as to what
>> was normative and what was informative.  But soon very soon after, most
>> of us switched over to citing RFC2119 and using its language to
>> distinguish between the two -- and I think this truly helped readers and
>> implementers know what they had to do to conform with and what they
>> didn't to ensure interoperable implementations. I'm really not sure  how
>> 20 years later, the use of RFC2119 to identify normative language can be
>> considered anything but the norm, let alone a proposed 'new norm'.
>>
>> FWIW of the 3198 RFCs with a 'standards'  category published after
>> RFC2119, 1995 reference RFC2119.  In the last 5 years the numbers are
>> 961 and 892 respectively.
>>
>> Lou
>>
>>
>> On 9/27/2017 4:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder 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.
>>>
>>> /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