Subject: [pcp] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-07: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:22:27 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-07: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-anycast/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm surprised by the lack of RFC 2119 keywords in a spec like this.
For example:

   The PCP anycast addresses, as defined in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, are
   added after the default router list (for IPv4 and IPv6) to the list
   of PCP server(s)

              MUST?

     ...

   A PCP Server can be configured to listen on the anycast address for
   incoming PCP requests.

	Is this a MAY or SHOULD?

What is the rationale for not using the RFC 2119 keywords?
Question to my fellow ADs. I'm so used to RFC 2119 keywords for such type
of specifications that I now wonder:
what are the guidelines for may/should/must use the RFC 2119 for standard
track spec?
At this point, it's preferable for the authors to wait for guidance from
the responsible AD and IESG.

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:57:01 +0000

> Question to my fellow ADs. I'm so used to RFC 2119 keywords for such type of specifications that I now wonder:
> what are the guidelines for may/should/must use the RFC 2119 for standard track spec?
> At this point, it's preferable for the authors to wait for guidance from the responsible AD and IESG.

My thoughts as document shepherd (and WG chair)...

The guidelines are in RFC 2119 section 6 which states:
> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
>
>    Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
>    and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
>    actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
>    potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For
>    example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
>    on implementors where the method is not required for
>    interoperability.

The WG believes that the guidance above means that 2119 keywords is
less appropriate for section 2 of draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-07 than the existing
text.

Dave