At 12:05 PM 8/1/2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> 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.
It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify
conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need.
normative language is for implementers, not education for users - at
least as its primary goal. Implementations can be configured to
comply and not comply with one or more RFCs, based on the needs of
the customer and the desire of the implementer (i.e., vendor) to want
the sale of their equipment to that customer. This fact is commonly
misunderstood. Melinda has wise words
Please note
that "IF THEN" is reducing the number of words in the draft as well
(more efficient). Please tell me what specification can specify a
conditional situation in less words than "IF, THEN". Many RFC don't
follow the easy way properly,
> Further, it's actively *harmful*.
I implemented some RFC that don't specify "if, then", and it was
harmful for me. I don't know what kind of harmful that the update will
make, please explain by an example. Do you mean harmful to the
reviewers or to the draft authors. Please note that we should make the
internet a better place for ALL not only for authors.
> 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*.
>
It is necessary, and the words in RFC2119 are not many if we compare
with our RFCs pages.
I thank you for your comments,
AB