Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-iesg-info-exp-00.txt]

imho, a requirements document is never standards track, and the words  
in 2119 only belong in documents that say what an implementation or  
solution must or must not do.

On May 25, 2005, at 7:53 AM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:

> I have a related question:  RFC 2119 says that the keywords "MUST" and  
> so forth are for standards track use.  In fact 2119 is very succinct  
> (which is generally good, but I think 2119 is perhaps too succinct).   
> It starts out with an Abstract:
>
> "In many standards track documents several words are used to signify  
> the requirements in the specification ...", There is nothing else in
> the main text: the document starts out with what appears to be a  
> numbered list, which in fact are section numbers.  I would like to see  
> some additional text in an Introduction section with detailed guidance  
> on proper use of the keywords.
>
> Specifically, I would like to see it address whether RFC 2119 words  
> are "allowed" in documents of other category.  To me it makes sense to  
> use them in Experimental track, but not in informational.  In RFC 4046  
> that I co-wrote  (MSEC group), we were forced to make all our MUSTs  
> lowercase (i.e., they are the English language must, not the 2119  
> keyword).  A quick search in a few crypto-related informational RFCs  
> reveals that the keywords are in fact used quite frequently in  
> non-standards track documents.
>
>
> I am looking for some guidance.  As I note above, perhaps the guidance  
> should be documented in BCP 14.
>
> (If it makes sense to use the keywords in Experimental RFCs, then the  
> info-exp I-D might discuss that.)
>
> thanks and regards,
> Lakshminath
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> Comments welcome (here, or on the ietf list if you think that is
>> more appropriate).
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-iesg-info-exp-00.txt
>> Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 15:42:02 -0400
>> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
>> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> CC: iesg@ietf.org
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts  
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Internet Engineering Steering Group  
>> Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>>     Title        : Choosing between Informational and Experimental  
>> Status
>>     Author(s)    : B. Carpenter
>>     Filename    : draft-iesg-info-exp-00.txt
>>     Pages        : 6
>>     Date        : 2005-5-23
>>     This document reproduces the rules for classifying documents as
>>    Informational and Experimental from RFC 2026, and amplifies those
>>    rules with guidelines relevant to ongoing IESG evaluations.  It is
>>    not intended to change any of the underlying principles.
>>
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-info-exp-00.txt
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> --
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>>
>>
>