IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] RECOMMENDS

Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Sun, 31 December 2023 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48E93C14F691 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:43:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.125
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.125 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sobco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cxFxvP7hV3_T for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:43:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (173-166-5-71-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC61C14F604 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:43:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (golem.sobco.com [199.204.155.34]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0070A24F2C8A; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 14:43:43 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=sobco.com; s=mail; t=1704051824; bh=gjg/pHC85CSmDjHUHHckR+OzkAw=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=ygP53Wj8p8khzjsSy+gmXdC49cb4Q9OK/hQRpxOckvfav7jzrfC3H6/j1EGVquVid ebf+sfJW0yLcYxCx6g6eMUgrMke2vflqH+J/EjvqfZXTRKfT09YECz/skRvfoFKy3R QtCuUzIWzj2l+RaY6eaNsJ14H6QJ+0PLWrVfxHkBnS9+L6VyLDWC45SaXae8aPgnc0 rV+pELqceDS+IhxL6zufQ0Qrs0SM3PJqriYb74GLxR+snxcUBd/yaVKVAjf6ZtR1LG lMx206AVmycW50inc6Qdv02jotidSf/PR4NNvTND+3Xp6+Plarv96s1FOB3EcMnCE3 hHsm/6E36yNdA==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\))
From: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <d2c2ffee-1af6-8441-7486-06115542690d@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 14:43:31 -0500
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C07CA12C-2A08-478F-A2CF-ED701D9A5406@sobco.com>
References: <d2c2ffee-1af6-8441-7486-06115542690d@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/JVDvPTmjGYto-MftS_hd8mHvUY4>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RECOMMENDS
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 19:43:50 -0000

well, the 2119 includes RECOMMENDED

there are a LOT more RFCs that include RECOMMENDS - starting with 1755 (referring to RFC 1577)
(93 lines in the RFCs include RECOMMENDS)

seems to me that RECOMMENDS is just a speaker change to RECOMMENDED and should not be considered an issue


Scott


> On Dec 31, 2023, at 2:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> To start off 2024 with a question, should we do anything about the mystery normative keyword "RECOMMENDS"?
> 
> Even with the small subset of RFCs that I keep on disk, grep "RECOMMENDS" rfc* produces this:
> 
> rfc3280.txt:   of attribute types defined below.  This specification RECOMMENDS
> rfc3280.txt:   over time.  This profile RECOMMENDS that names not be reused for
> rfc3280.txt:   RECOMMENDS use of one of these methods for generating keyIdentifiers.
> rfc3280.txt:   This profile RECOMMENDS support for the key identifier method by all
> rfc3280.txt:   specification RECOMMENDS use of one of these methods for generating
> rfc3280.txt:   To promote interoperability, this profile RECOMMENDS that policy
> rfc3280.txt:   RECOMMENDS support for this extension by CAs and applications.
> rfc3280.txt:   RECOMMENDS that implementations recognize this extension.
> rfc5681.txt:   document RECOMMENDS increasing the congestion window based on the
> rfc8064.txt:   this document RECOMMENDS that nodes do not generate stable IIDs with
> rfc8325.txt:   This document assumes and RECOMMENDS that all wireless APs (as the
> rfc8325.txt:   This document further assumes and RECOMMENDS that all wireless
> rfc8995.html:  therefore RECOMMENDS that no key usage restrictions be included.
> 
> As I'm sure we all know, this keyword is not defined in RFC 2119 or RFC 8174, but it is present in RFCs spanning at least 2002 through 2021. (A subtlety is that in RFC 8995, it is not in bold-face in the HTML version.)
> 
> Should we fix this with an erratum? (That has implications for XML2RFC, so it isn't quite a no-brainer.)
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email