ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt

2012-08-01 12:23:26
Thanks Yoav,
 
I don't get a lot of citations for that one :-)
 
From: Yoav Nir [mailto:ynir(_at_)checkpoint(_dot_)com] 
Sent: 01 August 2012 18:15
To: adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
Cc: Barry Leiba; Abdussalam Baryun; ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
 
He meant "PILLAR OF SALT"
 
On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:



Barry,
 
Did you mean "bad" or "BAD"?
 
A
 
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: 01 August 2012 17:04
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
 
I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
thanking you.
 
I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said.  This document is pointless, as
there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderstanding that it's
clarifying.  Further, it's actively *harmful*.  It's arguable that 2119 already
reserves too many words by giving them specific, normative meanings (SHALL *and*
MUST; SHOULD *and* RECOMMENDED).  Adding IF, THEN, and ELSE would not only be
unnecessary, but downright *bad*.
 
Barry 


Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway. 
 
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>