[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Minimum Implementation Requirements (Was: 2119bis)
Can anybody point to an incident in which lack of clarity around
2119 language caused problems, and it was determined that 2119
itself was the problem and not authors or editors being careless?
As we've defined SHOULD and MUST in RFC2119, they lay out conformance
requirements. I still don't see what's broken.
If the "Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST?" question that Spencer pointed
out is a common one, then guidance to authors might be an appropriate
The fact that reviewers sometimes question the choice between a SHOULD and MUST
(in either direction) demonstrates absolutely nothing in and of itself. In fact
I see such questions as entirely healthy and appropriate, indeed, if they
didn't come up fairly regularly I'd strongly suspect we have a much bigger
problem with our specifications not taking operational realities into account.
Now, if when such questions arise the eventual outcome is often that the SHOULD
gets changed to a MUST or vice versa, then we may have an issue with using the
terms that needs to be addressed. Or we may not - there are plenty of other
But we can save the root cause analysis until there is at least some evidence
that compliance terms are regularly being *changed* as a result of review
feedback. AFAIK such evidence has not been introduced.
P.S. And if anyone seeks to provide such evidence, please remember that
data is not the plural of anecdote.
Ietf mailing list