IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rfc-i] RECOMMENDS

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 31 December 2023 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 61C2DC14F600 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:24:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 XhhPIazvY2E6 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:24:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62c.google.com (mail-pl1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D370C14F5FC for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:24:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1d480c6342dso25457515ad.2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:24:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1704050689; x=1704655489; darn=rfc-editor.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:content-language :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=BXKhvGwTxQMVjIhqIQOyO0EJvM0IkKjmCGV2EupgjAM=; b=dwYCtAhJfMZVTqCwbWwGKxpYvac3dcxtLwrG0vnNDb2OoRcz1Sp9vYH/SotjwqjMZJ 53cWEH6U5JQGSM8FDYeADXO7si9EZoF/0GKEBGuXmazUrgd3LUU+X97oecCWcVHa/Z0G 4F9avhJXW0qf3u35BfzGHgGKllSKtKqA+OF3A8nKQR77xkzgdQAErmc1qAlry/UEDWLe cIoOLxtZ6nzlBjfDCnAUyS8puqPZEXYmKCk3pW1pS6eYvVO8UMkaWaxS74ZV92wI258c T1VuShrLnW/C1xfsP60vDtkZC2ljZgoBcjxxypCqw9Vc7onc3V2iiNj1kfwbuyOhsl6m J2aA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704050689; x=1704655489; h=content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:content-language :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BXKhvGwTxQMVjIhqIQOyO0EJvM0IkKjmCGV2EupgjAM=; b=W9Z9ZFDbLO7ISxHG+K2GXW2vD6Q4Bq3n7nUK2TzvOYXR0SWuAmMj1lKhtJ+YwdyBQJ ov1fZDxfzfMujnXQgC96oasnz1aq1ruDSSR41fKnb4eiP0Ys/4u9wZGKi8rMYgNfQ5sz mJKElAAkZ5dHQmJDi7LN8c/ugijc7PyJtAbLZIU0xlMQ+njWfSxjP3MC4d748ZBvEPqd gvl+vGuYf4ft0Z3cI7vhhE7qA5A6LUVyWjOW/OY6wCST2NUrnZrqBrvvf8vosh7T6SJo hEOmK5Dl9aiRBm0t9dPnRGQIEao6JGCPsCx+DlIgLf2LI3afpQ2N6ZRLqdmgWHItvsie QxCQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzo3Z2S7y13jvT1+gpfmnUBB5NErw0CLXXZcNP+sPiGJjixf3S4 7yv4xo6dUCo1Yj7wh+cCko5JeOmK4pZDcQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEEuKPXicmpJ4YmI8WbR2bUBHEdGBuuBwt/vHzPwK7Udrij+kPVxR2TYSbzheIA5iQHrmUrfg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:dac2:b0:1d4:4c8c:b124 with SMTP id q2-20020a170902dac200b001d44c8cb124mr14829524plx.60.1704050688999; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPV6:2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707? ([2404:4400:541d:a600:44b7:2c2e:2bc6:8707]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x1-20020a17090a164100b0028bee31ed8csm21531236pje.17.2023.12.31.11.24.47 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <d2c2ffee-1af6-8441-7486-06115542690d@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2024 08:24:44 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/kiZbsOKCrmq_DAD6RqVYlKz7IEo>
Subject: [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 19:24:54 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email