ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Minimum Implementation Requirements (Was: 2119bis)

2011-09-01 15:14:08
Hi, Melinda,

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?

Melinda

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??

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 then).

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 conversations.

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 ...

Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf