Re: [v6ops] RFC 2119 language in an informational draft?

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

+1


El 6/8/21 16:33, "v6ops en nombre de STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:

    > > >> May I suggest that an informational draft doesn't impose requirements,
    > > so there is no need for RFC 2119 language?
    > > >> I think that that suggestion is erroneous.
    > > >
    > > > +1.
    > > >
    > > > While this might be argumentum ad antiquitam, it is clear that this
    > > isn't the standard interpretation.
    > > >
    > > > Looking through the RFCs 8000 and above, I find 262 Informational
    > > documents using RFC2119 (RFC8174) language, and >4000 instances:
    > > > $ for file in (grep -l 'Category: Informational' rfc8???.txt)
    > > >                                                   egrep
    > > "SHOULD|MUST|REQUIRED|SHALL|RECOMMENDED|MAY|OPTIONAL" $file
    > > >                                               end >
    > > > ~/tmp/info_2119.txt $ wc -l ~/tmp/info_2119.txt
    > > >   4023
    > >
    > > [pedantic mode on] An informational document may contain quotes from the
    > > standard ones, so your grep would count them as well.
    > >
    > Hello Jen,
    > 
    > In that case, maybe is makes sense to allow the MUST (should it be between
    > quotes?) but not to allow the BCP 14 snippet.
    > 
    > Now, can there be BCP 14 text in an informational that would go straight
    > through AD sponsorship, and document a protocol that was defined outside the
    > IETF, e.g., implemented by one company and offered to the community? I guess
    > uppercase makes sense too in such document, and the BCP 14 snippet does too.
    > 
    > No later than yesterday I received a proposed amendment, for an informational
    > text, that contained MUST and SHOULD. So yes, the mistake must be
    > commonplace as people are not necessarily aware of the practice.
    > 
    > Net-Net: I see the value of raising a warning in a nit check, and document the
    > exception in the shepherd write up if the uppercase is confirmed, but not that
    > we can bar it the hard way.

    I'm not aware of any prohibition on having normative language in an informational draft and would be very much opposed to such a prohibition. For example, RFCs 7084 (IPv6 CE router), 8585 (IPv6 transition CE router), and 2516 (PPPoE) would be seriously diminished by a lack of RFC2119 language. The first 2 of these are v6ops products.
    Barbara

    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.