IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] RECOMMENDS

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 04 January 2024 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 D3D9EC1522A0 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 12:51:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmx.de
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 5qDGVbS6cLRK for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 12:51:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CB85C151985 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 12:51:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1704401468; x=1705006268; i=julian.reschke@gmx.de; bh=dBr1SfgW68FxnBN7o4ac0/RH9k/u8RGcjpf3q4aSNRU=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To; b=awZDbg4NfF22EInC+RAqlnlY4qpdvS4nuEPoBpIVkvk+/9isy0e1Rh0mWyoY/m4v 1enS+W5OEV5ZlsRnpRVTW7IM+25pDcBZQTUiB5/YirGcxH4Lr2ThguvPG5NntVsIU iO+fj+ONZmI+HSwv1LKt9cQER8o20s7rRmi4v4GJgZj3V4tpsb3X6XquOi6g2IaJD 3DEaHkXI+lMsH5cF+wHOBzfqXJYRgjcjOSa1+sOz22H9FSA4OL4oAK/YLs60BgaHB HBw9vqE6Topfkzqs12wV5SG24ExfRtAMHO42ZI3vHCEdlcTTL/l2+wayBnkks7M59 oEb12R7ZfkImt2lihQ==
X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a
Received: from [192.168.178.182] ([217.251.130.124]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N8obG-1r6s3u26Sc-015upL; Thu, 04 Jan 2024 21:51:08 +0100
Message-ID: <fc8d47ac-b6f6-4037-9751-34271250dc14@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2024 21:51:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <d2c2ffee-1af6-8441-7486-06115542690d@gmail.com> <13079.1704159169@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <ccb81ba5-d09c-a849-c32e-aaaa16cde968@gmail.com> <DM6PR02MB43774EE37D2FCB4C10A581F7D861A@DM6PR02MB4377.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <c49f652f-e370-4e61-8e14-a8c61079617f@gmx.de> <CANMZLAZu_xTGor6tZdSE3RiW+gRvEN-snYLepgU_HQxL2EgcnQ@mail.gmail.com> <d27bf8eb-9fce-41d2-9895-33d8f0ec9fac@nostrum.com> <18687.1704296479@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CAA=duU3rfh07b7uA9N2-TH_X-_LzOwY9RXH0AJv+wWBB35KBuQ@mail.gmail.com> <74429EE1-8301-48D9-99AF-1223AD20B888@gmail.com> <4b345ddc-ab88-437a-8510-8e0c4c106ba4@gmx.de> <31583.1704401076@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <31583.1704401076@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:feb5/VQaQdhL49hDpM5JNM+CuGgLSPSO8UTpHpeZj2qFLhWFqbn N80U7DMlStwBWAcmdY0mZMdbifs/NDQjUxwrRCKm1k6idkxedoBvTfSYe5FKY2WyLKAz9Dp EbcDdvV7Hlts+m0KinFAYZbapy9Hhvpn2vTJrD6j5XUTUtoPIRz3PuFsXjbi5j3d5T+ZT32 ova6wrQMXS4b15ZJe9pTg==
UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:/DZYm8HJbGA=;kktNWbdBxqwzWxW6WgDNuODHXgW 8mtKz3STsiTuriZdnyl2jLaIEcTd/JPPPd/tHk89NM0eXSuWxFqGqb9STo7D3XF1Jv1Vq9Pgq rN5pXQnJKY7WhcgE2NauGxx57BicVMmXblNGDh1NUAQznRr9vGWOrZ2nWm0agO5M1TOeNveZ8 2Xd/FPxvntwSNaQAKNfJ9LIvfqi1NbbzAg7Tr/2KmiOXa5IZzi/7GIGW8KWM4bmIDOJy9zSLR 29iNILtWVD95PZxXo+jBNIYHTtFT8OnNpExi/Am0+pkC6Cm9tkdVC1MfRcOWcmG2jYPZzD+px 3wDMy+2w6FRP8DXXn1ykGtiRZXFKeSml2Ky0yjOX4uOZkMmaB25tK51NoMrwNg/jZByusxZU8 +BDR5rN1XJaZjI2kmUFqiER4oVFEN2pWIEp7ZLIX0tUHaeSqCDEOXpTW8r2aLy8sq4yGxviM+ PaKLurVsG6PCKe9lxFd94q02lm2o17Fh6FmknFsA4R7RYDC4EiQEgWasZ/fTJLIE3dR6tMI6q b1k4acTUPQj7aX3oyafJO7nI8N9tNR6bnNA48vIK5zFTA8jRQtnV+RwP4Zflp0Svq3vnIjwh+ D28LM37itZH4ip0uzI+2FORxeAzw0SBdBns45QZoSdN2LBFt7dx2RNYwG4nVMC5L8tU+tbr4g WDroSQSz2rDyHVdX0vZcFIrXp58hRyzDQwpVUoIX34YO1C8gA2HlkwQHFLGmbVOEE8Hd7DkER GWqwacQpEOPhftZFGwt4jmR+3CV0qifQHG/XGAOawfpS/hV543Y/7idp5s68NwqsQXt/z5Mpl M9o4mpDnfozFC0u4Rf88rS5qqkXqVBTYk6wH0C/9U2RKY+a+mp8YeE62OFl/AJ0/dKBiwQbaO edb1SVOsMbZJ3RMIArsdt0uKufjiN232xf/k1ZXC4fI7BRzg+GyI+ltgvgcHz9ZtrnSi8N1nh L4tWrA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/V6MUpVnbXcIaydSCOntkbdhZZgo>
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: Thu, 04 Jan 2024 20:51:17 -0000

On 04.01.2024 21:44, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Julian Reschke <julian.reschke=40gmx.de@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>      >>>
>      >>> Like Michael, I'm also the author of an RFC (8469) that uses the
>      >>> phrase "This document RECOMMENDS ...". As Brian noted, we could have
>      >>> used "It is RECOMMENDED that..." but we preferred the active voice,
>      >>> and obviously the IESG and RFC Editor had no problem with it. I also
>      >>> agree that it should be made official.
>      >>
>      >> +1
>      >>
>      >> I also like the active voice.
>      >>
>      >> Perhaps an errata can be filed that makes this clearer.
>      >>
>      >> Bob
>
>      > I don't think this qualifies as "erratum". It's a feature request.
>
> I think it's errata on BCP14 clarifying that there are a number of
> grammatical variants of some things.
> Yes, it's a feature request on xml2rfc.

I respectfully disagree. RFC 2119 is what is is, and there is no error here.

xml2rfc is another question. My implementation (rfcxml.xslt) will take
whatever content of <bcp14> you throw at it, but will warn if it's not
what is defined in BCP 14. Does xml2rfc behave differently?

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email