IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] RECOMMENDS

tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 31 December 2023 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@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 2B0A0C14F604 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:46:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, 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=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 C6HdDetYNWLD for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf29.google.com (mail-qv1-xf29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f29]) (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 68103C14F5F8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf29.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-68083a0889dso21510136d6.2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:46:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1704052009; x=1704656809; darn=rfc-editor.org; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=dy3DW4RqW1/zabyG/j3LTW9F1uSgmbDYmBvmBFMw3T4=; b=AuPqK7d+KGKKBNJn83oWTqvOQQMb7SL0bWeFarAt74PsIzaH7fENLZxziJEPkD3VwG PrDV26ehoon1IiQ1QGsm0abQ9tWy3CamdbbjFu8NB+SHYofvux3HSYwoueljSwZe/Zxl vzFNXYdQIJVeHZGfWV+9OpA8Q01TPL3S6taWELVZtfMzMEXXr6VB985h7nJEYMxoO4gu uunnr1MB4Hh28QlA2GSx6w8cO3KkEEOblvQUG6NF8SjDAW716/WLkgkFLF76M/sT1Q6M iRVb7R6+ulE5xcffgGwfEOgUfgiAJdufcO6WGnosLbOade/Fs+gbQujuO8XbATuNZoJp x/Zw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704052009; x=1704656809; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dy3DW4RqW1/zabyG/j3LTW9F1uSgmbDYmBvmBFMw3T4=; b=N8nibEpljvcUFDiQXHwot4NOEinjZQJixbzfUBQ7uZYy0vfPWL0UWjBWxTSr6OaxjW By47ixUyLgnhYFNB7aahxx+0UvEyOL1eOHKvvRUs6NtA3kDuTopbJxqvN17HGsTjvkMr yE0IXKHj74qZdZUrZ/rdc+3mtvtyN2MM1qaUntXSpTcfQqq3F+QBlqrghUlafE6KkjWd K22rKhp0JCq+sS7xiuenuuOlmZ2Z+VVV2gzg1kpUUxNkNlnMdrjfgfQZ9vaUkYKu+xzH GliSfdXAfTZl6MomtcaZMJoAVAJc2etxyJpJ8WmNiAxzmu1+qRswqvWkYWd/qw2b0kX7 j8ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx7cVt+sQYmF0Pl83AQZZLysF8lGqst2N2DzBjOxri1XL13l6kY d7ous9rrk3v/D9zgCd9LqSbC4g7vcpY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH31PSSvJApkrzpL+E2igM/wF2/oOig9gaRk2cZOloJguUXp7NbLN27twaI0ctazOwM5oSzcw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:246a:b0:67f:4856:87be with SMTP id im10-20020a056214246a00b0067f485687bemr21078009qvb.8.1704052009489; Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:46:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (50-110-83-191.clbg.wv.frontiernet.net. [50.110.83.191]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t5-20020a0cf985000000b0068086c5fcb2sm2521903qvn.143.2023.12.31.11.46.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 31 Dec 2023 11:46:49 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 14:46:37 -0500
Message-Id: <884EE721-85E3-499E-BB31-8446FC63550C@gmail.com>
References: <C07CA12C-2A08-478F-A2CF-ED701D9A5406@sobco.com>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <C07CA12C-2A08-478F-A2CF-ED701D9A5406@sobco.com>
To: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21D5026f)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/pt0DDieMkNWPBJ1Uz4bEhKvtTDo>
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: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 19:46:55 -0000

I agree with Scott on it being a speaker change. 

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 31, 2023, at 14:43, Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:

well, the 2119 includes RECOMMENDED

there are a LOT more RFCs that include RECOMMENDS - starting with 1755 (referring to RFC 1577)
(93 lines in the RFCs include RECOMMENDS)

seems to me that RECOMMENDS is just a speaker change to RECOMMENDED and should not be considered an issue


Scott


> On Dec 31, 2023, at 2:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email