[pcp] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-07: (with DISCUSS)

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 16 September 2015 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680641B3E25; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 Vp-DdokGIgCO; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4AAF1B3E23; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150916142227.30400.37739.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:22:27 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/a0X0_j1dMg4K-VVGxn7ezkz0vtM>
Cc: draft-ietf-pcp-anycast.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pcp-anycast.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pcp-anycast@ietf.org, pcp@ietf.org, pcp-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [pcp] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-07: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:22:29 -0000

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-07: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-anycast/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm surprised by the lack of RFC 2119 keywords in a spec like this.
For example:

   The PCP anycast addresses, as defined in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, are
   added after the default router list (for IPv4 and IPv6) to the list
   of PCP server(s)

              MUST?

     ...

   A PCP Server can be configured to listen on the anycast address for
   incoming PCP requests.

	Is this a MAY or SHOULD?


What is the rationale for not using the RFC 2119 keywords?
Question to my fellow ADs. I'm so used to RFC 2119 keywords for such type
of specifications that I now wonder:
what are the guidelines for may/should/must use the RFC 2119 for standard
track spec?
At this point, it's preferable for the authors to wait for guidance from
the responsible AD and IESG.