I think the right thing for new documents to do is reference both 2119 and
this document, not _just_ this document.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Stewart Bryant
<stewart(_dot_)bryant(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
That would be a satisfactory approach.
However I suspect that just as IDs still put Network Working Group in the
top left corner, so I suspect RFC2119 will be the normal reference used.
Stewart
On 10/08/2016 13:19, Ted Lemon wrote:
I think the right approach to take with this document is not as an
explicit update to RFC 2119 text, but rather as a Talmudic commentary on
RFC2119. This document should do two things: it should help readers of
old documents who are unclear about what 2119 says, and it should be
available as a document that can be normatively reference by authors of new
documents who want more clarity than RFC2119 provides.
The document should be explicit that while it updates 2119, documents that
refer only to 2119 and not to this document are not updated: if this
document helps the reader to better understand the context in which the
RFC2119 keywords are used, great, but nothing more than that is intended.
For documents that do normatively reference this document and not just
RFC2119, the update is normative.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Stewart Bryant
<stewart(_dot_)bryant(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Having thought a little more about this, I am wondering about
unintended consequences in the 5K documents that we have
written since RFC2119 was published.
If we effectively change RFC2119 as we propose, is there
a danger that readers will incorrectly interpret old text
with new semantics. T
I have no idea whether anything of significance will occur
but considering the thought put into terms like SHOULD
there exists a risk that would be mitigated if we picked
a new RFC number whereupon the reader would know
which definition the writers and reviewers were using.
- Stewart