----- Original Message -----
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org>
To: "Melinda Shore" <melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>;
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 10:11 PM
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?
My recollection is that, at least since the early 2000s, most "problems"
were encountered with Last Call/Gen-ART (and probably other review team)
comments taking forms like
"Why is this SHOULD not a MUST?", or the ever-popular
"Why is this Informational draft using 2119 language??
This sounds like RFC2119 working perfectly. The WG is saying that this element
of the protocol SHOULD (as defined in RFC2119) be ...
whereas the reviewer is saying that the protocol would be improved if this
element of the protocol MUST (as defined in RFC2119) be ....
No evidence of a problem with RFC2119 there.
There are probably variants I don't remember (I stopped being an active
Gen-ART reviewer when I began serving on the IAB, and I've slept since
In my comments on 2119bis
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68885.html), I was
suggesting that clarifications might head off some of these recurring
At this point, I would be fine with a draft (of any flavor - obsoleting,
updating, or just an IESG statement) that addresses whether these questions
are reasonable questions. I don't have a deep need to add the (mostly
reasonable) suggestions that have been made for new terms.
If the IESG thinks that's a reasonable thing to do, they can make a call
about the particular flavor, just fine ...
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list