I do not believe there is any need to change RFC 2119.
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Scott O. Bradner <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu>
I've been traveling so have not had a chance to do anything but watch
the discussion on a RFC 2119 update.
a few thoughts
1/ I am far from convinced that there is a need to update RFC 2119
there is a bug in the boilerplate (as has been mentioned)
and some people seem to have a hard time understanding what
(to me) seem like clear descriptions of (for example) MUST &
SHOULD - but the issues do not seem serious enough to warrant
replacing what is, basically, a simple dictionary & usage
2/ it seems like a very Bad Idea to move 2119 to historic- we move
RFCs to historic when no one uses them or when they are a Bad
Idea in light of updated technology - I do not think that makes
much sense in this case - in addition it makes the status of RFCs
that have a normative reference to a historic document a bit
funky - if an update is actually needed there is no reason that
I can come up with that it could not just be that -- an update
3/ I doubt that I'll ever catch up with Postel as the most referenced
RFC author so that is not a consideration (for me)
I wrote RFC 2119 (most using text from RFC 1122) because people were
using MUST without saying what they meant, an update, if people think
that one is actually needed, will serve that purpose as well as 2119 has.
When I posted the original ID it was pointed out that I should also
address when such terms should be used (i.e. try to limit the use to
where it actually made sense protocol-wise) - I tried to do that but
that part may not have been as successful as it might have been - any
update might try to be clearer in this area that RFC 2119 is.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list