[rfc-i] RFC2119 requirements language in security considerations?

brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Fri, 08 April 2016 01:22 UTC

From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:22:53 +1200
Subject: [rfc-i] RFC2119 requirements language in security considerations?
In-Reply-To: <82804D29-7C86-4B1C-9AE1-2A33BC04A019@vpnc.org>
References: <56FAF0C2.6060000@KingsMountain.com> <8ABA5F91-97AF-471B-83F8-0C1D03EAA2B0@vpnc.org> <5706BC88.2050903@gmail.com> <82804D29-7C86-4B1C-9AE1-2A33BC04A019@vpnc.org>
Message-ID: <570707ED.4090208@gmail.com>

On 08/04/2016 09:54, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2016, at 17:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>>> This has been discussed occasionally in security WGs, with people noting that readers
>>> often only skim the Security Considerations section and thus might miss the requirements.
>>
>> Seriously? After all these years you find that implementers don't read them, even when the
>> RFC2119 keywords are upper-cased?
> 
> Yes. They even admit it freely.

How dispiriting.

    Brian