Subject: Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD

From: Charles Lindsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:44:08 +0100 (BST)

On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:29:23 -0400
	Keith Moore <[email-masked]> said...

> 
> > But I see little point in repeating the 2119 text in full.
> 
> as Dan pointed out, there is language in 2119 (specifically 
> section 6) that over-constrains use of 2119.  since 2119
> was published it is apparent that there are valid reasons
> to use 2119 keywords that  are not "actually required for 
> interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential 
> for causing harm" ... especially when we base try to define
> conformance to the specification strictly in terms of 
> these keywords.
> 
> the normal workaround (until 2119 is revised) is for a
> document to provide its own definitions of MUST/SHOULD/etc.
> I suppose we could try referencing 2119 with a disclaimer
> that section 6 does not apply...and see if that gets by IESG.
> if we wanted to try this I'd strongly recommend that someone 
> approach the author of 2119 first and ask him in person about it.

Well we wanted to do something long those lines in USEFOR, so we asked
the higher ups in IESG (specifially the Area Director, who will be the
same Area Director as DRUMS, I imagine) whether we were allowed to
contemplate such a thing. Specifically, we wanted either to extend the
use of SHOULD to encompass things that were not strictly necessary for
interoperability, but which were nevertheless highly desirable for the
smooth functioning of Usenet. Alternatively, we asked if we could define
a word OUGHT for that purpose.

We were told in no uncertain terms that we could not do either of those
things. The most we would be allowed to do would be to use "ought" in
lower case for such things (which is what we will likely now do).

So with that precedent established, I hardly see how DRUMS can make any
substantial departure from 2119.

But yes, referencing 2119 with such disclaimers as you think appropriate
would be the right way to do it, if you can get the powers that be to
allow it.

Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     [email-masked]  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7  65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 07:24:57 +1000

Date:        Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:44:08 +0100 (BST)
    From:        Charles Lindsey <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | We were told in no uncertain terms that we could not do either of those
  | things. The most we would be allowed to do would be to use "ought" in
  | lower case for such things (which is what we will likely now do).

I have no idea which AD told you that, but either they misunderstood
exactly what it was you were asking, or they had lost the plot completely.

2119 is a nice common reference for some terms which (these days) are
commonly used in documents - but there has never been, and isn't, any
compulsion to use the things, or to refrain from defining your own terms
to augment what is in 2119.

If anything like that were to be considered as a requirement for the IETF
it would have to be agreed by the IETF first - and the way that would be
done would be by going through the poisson WG first, and then an IETF
last call after that.   None of that has happened for any suggestion in
any way related to use of 2119, it hasn't even been hinted at.

Neither ADs, nor the IESG get to just invent new rules, any time it looks
like that is what is happening you should investigate closely - sometimes
it is all just a misunderstanding (or an old rule you didn't know about is
being applied).  Other times the AD/IESG has just lost the plot.

kre

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:34:07 -0700

>any way related to use of 2119, it hasn't even been hinted at.

Just to underscore this a bit more:  The IETF makes firm and universal 
rules that apply to all working groups, concerning working group PROCESS.

There is very damn little about working group technical CONTENT (or even 
specification syntax) that is mandated.  (I'm tempted to say that none is, 
but exceptions have started to occur, like pressure for strong security and 
use of unicode, but even these have some flexibility.)

Working Groups are presumed to be competent to decide the details 
appropriate for their situation.  Area Directors should, must and do 
intervene when a working group is out of control.  But those are -- 
unfortunately not as rare as one might like -- boundary conditions.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA