John C Klensin wrote:
On 8/29/11 3:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-2119bis-01.txt
Based on the feedback received, I do not plan to pursue
further work on that Internet-Draft. However, given that the
IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor team already accept
documents that include "NOT RECOMMENDED" in the RFC 2119
boilerplate, does anyone see harm in verifying the
aforementioned erratum?
Sigh.
Sorry to make this more complicated but, IMO, the error in 2119
and, to some extent, recent practice, is in permitting
"RECOMMENDED" as a synonym for "SHOULD", not in failing to
permit its opposite.
...
To provide an additional focus for this, I've just filed
proposed erratum 2969
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2119&eid=2969)
that reflects the comments above. You now have a choice about
which one to approve :-)
hmmmmmm, now I am even more confused!!! Does this mean people could
now add this errata reference in their new documents? Does it mean
authors SHOULD|MUST remove and stop all usage of RECOMMENDED in their
current and future docs?
How about an Errata to the Errata? :)
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf