--On Monday, August 29, 2011 17:50 -0400 Thomas Narten
<narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
It would help me if you explained the diffs and the *reasons*
for the proposed changes.
...
The wording "unless there is a strong explicitly described
reason not to do so in particular circumstances" is new
wording and my first reaction is it's not helpful. I.e.,
"explicitely described by who?" Explicitely specified in the
text? If so, that seems unworkable in practice.
What problem is this bis document intended to fix?
+1
Note that, although it has often not been understood and there
has been pushback from an occasional AD, we've traditionally
never insisted on use of the 2119 definitions but instead have
permitted individual documents to define their own conformance
norms if they could justify doing so. I can't tell whether this
document is intended to change that or not.
In addition, if you are going to recommend alternative
terminology for situations in which conformance language is
inappropriate, it would be nice for the community (and for the
RFC Editor) if the terms suggested as examples were literate.
For example, because specifications and protocols are rarely
animate, it is not clear than one can possible "need to" do much
of anything.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf