I agree with several who have already voiced objections to obsoleting 2119.
On the other hand, a BCP on conformance keyword usage could be useful.
In addition to the clarification of the use of SHOULD
(that is being discussed at length),
I would like to see a clarification of the difference between MUST and metaMUST
(or supportMUST or interopMUST) and regular/meta similar terms for SHOULD, MAY,
etc.
and examples of their use.
By that I mean the difference between
MUST: When sending a foo message you MUST include the bar TLV
metaMUST: All implementations MUST support the bar TLV
the latter meaning that bar is not always sent,
but if sent it must be properly processed.
There is an (AFAIK unwritten) rule about metaMUST,
that I believe SHOULD be documented.
If the protocol allows several options for doing something,
precisely one MUST be a metaMUST, and the others metaMAYs.
Note that the MUST in the previous sentence is MUST about
the use of a metaMUST, and is this a metametaMUST.
I am not sure if the previous SHOULD is a meta^2SHOULD or a meta^3SHOULD.
Y(J)S
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 00:37
To: IETF discussion list
Subject: 2119bis
After staring at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=499 for
long enough, I finally decided to submit an I-D that is intended to
obsolete RFC 2119. I hope that I've been able to update and clarify the
text in a way that is respectful of the original. Feedback is welcome.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-2119bis-01.txt
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf