On 8/31/11 9:48 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Keith, Peter,
I think you're overgeneralizing. My experience is that judicious use
of SHOULD seems to make both protocols and protocol specifications
simpler; trying to nail everything down makes them more complex.
I agree.
In any case, Peter, I think its fine to add the NOT RECOMMENDED word to
the boilerplate. Publish a spec on that, have it Update 2119, and then
new RFCs would refer to that (say, 7119) instead of 2119
Yes, that is one path.
and everyone
would be happy.
I'm not sure that everyone would be happy, because I do think that some
clarifications and additional guidelines might be helpful. But those,
too, could go in a separate (likely Informational) document that would
not necessarily update (and certainly not obsolete) 2119.
But I'm not quite sure why there are other changes in the text. Maybe I
need to be educated better. On quick read I got more questions from it
than what I get from 2119...
Thus the desirability of writing a separate document.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf