IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] RECOMMENDS

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 02 January 2024 02:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 2BC33C14F61D for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jan 2024 18:18:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_TVD_MIME_EPI=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=sandelman.ca
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 8jw_opib62Hh for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jan 2024 18:18:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE661C14F5F5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 1 Jan 2024 18:18:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8941800D; Mon, 1 Jan 2024 21:18:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 61e-S0RI2Rdk; Mon, 1 Jan 2024 21:18:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683201800C; Mon, 1 Jan 2024 21:18:35 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1704161915; bh=yAF+hPWsv/qrOWi1+UTkKfRTQZEEWXIPQnoSvEBwXNM=; h=From:to:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=X/kCZyT1znRdFsjZixGf/VVmq+v6sdak+6TamlM37Ma8Qh8gelLtvjL24cKZyw2Ta 3162K9hwaqo6q+LKnPYYcAbYOVpm2Y6eV7kVdqFR/f+0R5tlxJ4LDIuvu8lWHGkT3h gpWViqPAbykE5XkCkn0aUePjy5+aDtq931Am/IgjjBfwxx9gxB4tRj2kktj34t22qk vky2HCXsDLDWsEUE2rQc9vQDUifc/05ZxnawOVLaxHKc2urhSIbRJCvJ11NTQEhp+7 /qwL2PAt5g+azJZ6vzbpf31eAk9/D2mM/poqs3c5kBWFlMzvEmc5Qoo6cjqTVehDhf aedZcNa3MYOKA==
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E3FB2; Mon, 1 Jan 2024 21:18:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
to: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <13079.1704159169@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <d2c2ffee-1af6-8441-7486-06115542690d@gmail.com> <13079.1704159169@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2024 21:18:35 -0500
Message-ID: <26201.1704161915@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/MYrrEZo_XYwUOv546sFpRJpqjpU>
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: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 02:18:42 -0000

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> 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.)

    > Oh. I thought it was a synonym for SHOULD, and that we just used it because
    > sometimes it felt better.

    > I guess I never looked.  I wonder why the RPC didn't fix it?

Oh, I see. RECOMMENDS vs RECOMMENDED.

I think it's a bug in BCP14, and SHOULD accept both, and yes, fix xml2rfc.

(and then argue again about regenerating the HTML)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email