Re: [rfc-i] RECOMMENDS

Hi,

> On Jan 3, 2024, at 8:11 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> 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

> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 10:41 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca <mailto:mcr%2Bietf@sandelman.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hmm.
>> I'm responsible for the RFC8995 use of RECOMMENDS, in it's full context is:
>> 
>>    Sections 7.2.13 (2009 edition) and 8.10.3 (2018 edition) of [IDevID]
>>    discuss keyUsage and extendedKeyUsage extensions in the IDevID
>>    certificate.  [IDevID] acknowledges that adding restrictions in the
>>    certificate limits applicability of these long-lived certificates.
>>    This specification emphasizes this point and therefore RECOMMENDS
>>    that no key usage restrictions be included.  This is consistent with
>>    [RFC5280], Section 4.2.1.3, which does not require key usage
>>    restrictions for end-entity certificates.
>> 
>> in the list that Brian posted, it seems to be the youngest use :-)
>> 
>> We could have worded it:
>>    This specification emphasizes this point and therefore it is RECOMMENDED
>>    that no key usage restrictions be included.  This is consistent with
>> 
>> There definitely ought to be an "or else" for each SHOULD, and the "or else"
>> here is that it likely will fail to interoperate with anything that is
>> enforcing EKU.  In our case, that is actually what the IDevID document(s)
>> say, so we avoided repeating ourself, and I think that's okay.
>> Using "SHOULD NOT" we could have written:
>> 
>>    This specification emphasizes this point and key usage restrictions SHOULD
>>    NOT be included.  This is consistent with...
>> 
>> I think that these revisions would have been just fine.
>> I mostly agree with a few people (who unicasted me) that "it's all fine"
>> 
>> Where I agree with Brian: "grep" and non-english speakers who wonder if there
>> is some difference.  And the XML/HTML markup needs fixing.
>> 
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca <mailto:mcr%2BIETF@sandelman.ca>>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest