The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the RTP Media Congestion Avoidance
Techniques WG (rmcat) to consider the following document:
- 'Congestion Control Requirements For RMCAT'
<draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-05.txt> as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2014-08-13. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
I feel obliged to point out the "Requirements Language":
] The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
] "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
] document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
] The terms are presented in many cases using lowercase for
] readability.
I really don't understand the intent here; but a plain reading would
say that every "may" in the text (including two in the boilerplate) is
a 2119-may. This seems unlikely.
I strongly recommend that this wording not be used. It would be far
better to state that the 2119 meaning _only_ applies when the terms are
UPPERCASE.
I realize that the WG will have to review which lowercase-musts are
intended as 2119-musts: there would appear to be eight cases which _might_
be intended as 2119-musts; but I seriously doubt that more than 10% of
the lowercase-mays were intended as 2119-mays.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>