Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-04.txt

[James Woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 5, 2015, at 13:30, David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The only use of use upper case RFC2119 keywords in the document are in quotes from other documents.  Such use seem appropriate, even if you think upper case RFC2119 keywords are not normally appropriate in an Informational category document.  Since quotes using upper case RFC2119 keywords are included I think the citation of RFC 2119 is also appropriate and clarifies their use.

Indeed. I didn’t notice that. The text in section 2, Requirements Language, doesn’t actually observe that RFC 2119 keywords only appear in quotations taken from other Standards Track documents, and hence the reason that only the ALL CAPS versions of the keywords are interpreted as normative requirements language. I think, perhaps, more clarification would have helped.

The way I got started down that path was noting the sentence in section 4.2.1 that reads "Thus this document does not recommend the use of ULA+NPTv6” and thinking, hey, this document actually cites RFC 2119 and that phrase “does not recommend” looks suspiciously like the RFC 2119 keyword “not recommended” while not actually being an instance of it. Furthermore, the exception statement that only the ALL CAPS versions of the keywords are interpreted as normative requirements language is a peculiar feature of this draft, not commonly used in other documents, and the reason for it escaped me at the time.


—james