Pekka (follow-up on plenary discussion),
I agree with the core of your comment, I think. What I meant (had not thought
it through in detail) was that the words of 2119 are defined in a way that
really only makes sense for technical specifications, and I interpret your
response to basically say that too, right? In my view, Informational documents
are not technical specifications in a normative way that would make 2119
applicable. Do you have a different view? I did not think of Experimental,
there we actually have non-StandardsTrack documents that are technical
specifications for which 2119 would make sense.
I still think it would be hard to find general definitions for non-technical
documents, but I do not mind if someone wants to try. In any case, limiting
2119 usage to technical specifications seems to me to be the right first step.
Just my 2 öre!
/L-E
-----------------------------------
Lars-Erik Jonsson
Ericsson Research, Corporate Unit
E-mail: lars-erik(_dot_)jonsson(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
My opinions are my personal opinions and should not be considered
as the opinions of my employer, if not explicitly stated. At the
end of this message, my employer might have automatically inserted
a stupid disclaimer. This nonsense is out of my control and should
simply be ignored.
This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s).
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by
replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it.
Thank you.
E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption,
unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive
e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption,
interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.