Thanks for starting this, Peter. A few comments / topics for discussion:
1) I agree that the "SHOULD... UNLESS" pattern ought be documented.
2) I strongly believe that authors should be encouraged to enumerate the
potential subjects of conformance terms, and to use them in every instance.
For example, a requirement like this:
"""The Foo header MUST contain the "bar" directive"""
is ambiguous; it doesn't specify who has to do what. Rather,
"""Senders MUST include the "bar" directive when producing the Foo header;
recipients that receive a Foo header without a "bar" directive MUST ..."""
is unambiguous (assuming that the spec defines the terms "sender" and
"recipient").
3) It may be worth further cautioning against over-use of MAY; this is the
most-abused term, IME. Perhaps encouraging people to make requirements testable
on the wire would help.
4) WRT to the status of the document -- if people really feel that we don't
need to revise 2119, I'd define this as a superset of 2119 and NOT obsolete it;
i.e., have documents opt into it. However, I'd hope that we can get consensus
that it's time to build on what 2119 offers.
Cheers,
On 30/08/2011, at 7:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
After staring at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=499 for
long enough, I finally decided to submit an I-D that is intended to
obsolete RFC 2119. I hope that I've been able to update and clarify the
text in a way that is respectful of the original. Feedback is welcome.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-2119bis-01.txt
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf