ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Minimum Implementation Requirements (Was: 2119bis)

2011-09-01 18:15:53
Melinda Shore wrote:
On 09/01/2011 02:53 PM, Hector wrote:
RC may not be the issue, but it might help if its use carefully measure
how much a MUST is required to get the job done.

You appear to be advocating for more rigorous document review, not
for a 2119 revision.

Its a circular management issue. I personally don't believe there is a problem with RFC2119, and the different interpretations only reflects the recognition there are new implementation issues (or needs). Some of this are resolved with relaxed reviews and controversial (appeal material) decisions. Will the new Two-Level Maturity process perpetuate the problem?

I think RFC2119 can be fine tuned to recognize the new issues without fundamentally changing its original intent. Maybe it can help to reduce reviewing pressures and help the new two-level maturity be more successful.

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