Re: [RTG-DIR] Drafts without MUST requirements - advice needed
Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Wed, 22 April 2015 12:26 UTC
Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968B21B353F for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 05:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sZTti9Y7NhEz for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 05:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B8DA1B353C for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 05:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3123; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429705589; x=1430915189; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=LxsmJHGl6WPb5S4/6jA3vTMfjjWHX4X/3zRabHO6+rw=; b=TrH9FfKUTtSCHPqOJ/WrS8apCh0lMGs0wSCYeu+MafY/FjxtJ3P5i6vE HWTojQtoUZXJ1XbxqdU6ZnrAR1Xe4Fncqb0HjfWDfaaNLaD+0e0KEc2kU RUvOXmLFJGYB7OWV7YWpMLiLGrX1d3K6UD5r8dhfuGFNBrlvHcFME8PNy 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,623,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="443447709"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2015 12:26:27 +0000
Received: from [64.103.106.98] (dhcp-bdlk10-data-vlan300-64-103-106-98.cisco.com [64.103.106.98]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3MCQQ0i016095; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:26:26 GMT
Message-ID: <55379376.8010400@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:26:30 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
References: <1429699418060.19335@ecitele.com>
In-Reply-To: <1429699418060.19335@ecitele.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050102010806040908030802"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/wwu227HsPnIb0sRV509GJBEKYCc>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Drafts without MUST requirements - advice needed
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:26:47 -0000
On 22/04/2015 11:43, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > Recently I have seen a few drafts with intended status as PS but > wiythout any MUST/MUST NOT requirement in the text. > > > From my POV this is bad form, because the implementer does not know > what is the minimal functionality that provides any level of > interoperability. In the worst case the implementer may decide not to > do anything and claim compliance. > > > However, I could not find any documents that explicitly define such > style as not acceptable. Have I missed something? Or am I over-cautious? > > > Your advice would be highly appreciated. > > > Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, > > Sasha > Sasha I think that you need to provide a bit more context. It is possible to text describing a definitive action without using the word "must". Stewart
- [RTG-DIR] Drafts without MUST requirements - advi… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Drafts without MUST requirements - … Stewart Bryant