Subject: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06: (with DISCUSS)

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 13:55:40 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06: 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-6man-rfc1981bis/

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

I'm putting in this point as a DISCUSS because I think that the current
text may be confusing and vague.

As others have pointed out, this document includes rfc2119-like language,
both capitalized and not.  I realize that rfc1981 was published before
rfc2119 and that no expectation on the language existed then.  However,
we're at a point in time where not only rfc2119 is in place, but
draft-leiba-rfc2119-update (which clarifies that only uppercase language
has special meaning) is in AUTH48.  I think that this leads to the
possibility that the average reader may interpret the requirements in
this document in a way that it wasn't intended.

While I would prefer that this document be consistent (and either use
capitalized rfc2119 language as intended, OR, not used it at all), I
understand the intent of not changing some of the original text.  I would
be happy with a note like this one: "Note:  This document is an update to
RFC1981 that was published prior to RFC2119 being published. 
Consequently while it does use "should/must" style language in upper and
lower case, the document does not cite the RFC2119 definitions.  This
update does not change that."   [I borrowed this text from the the INTDIR
review thread. [1]]

I find that including a note in the Shepherd's write-up is not enough
because the average reader/implementer will not consult it.

[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/bVH_0ydVdGssOiszJKhQXLYPuXY/?qid=4000f8a954b226266f429842911101f5

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 00:54:13 -0400

Hi Alvaro,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis/

I am personally fine with including this text in the draft, but I
would like the editor, the shepherd and the WG to chime in as well.

Thanks
Suresh

(The editor is traveling on an intercontinental trip today and might
take some time to respond)

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 11:29:28 +0300

Suresh,

> On May 9, 2017, at 7:54 AM, Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alvaro,
> 
> 

I am fine with including a note like this in this document.

Bob

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 17:37:40 +0300

Alvaro,

Based on your Discuss, I am planning to add:

   Note: This document is an update to [RFC1981] that was published
   prior to [RFC2119] being published.  Consequently while it does use
   "should/must" style language in upper and lower case, the document
   does not cite the RFC2119 definitions.  This update does not change
   that.

To the Introduction of this document.  It should appear in the next published version of this draft.

Thanks,
Bob

> On May 8, 2017, at 11:55 PM, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:43:57 +0000

Thanks Bob, that works for me.

Alvaro.

On 5/9/17, 10:37 AM, "Bob Hinden" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Alvaro,

Thanks,
Bob

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 17:45:43 -0400

Alvaro,

Thanks!

Bob

> On May 10, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 06:01:11 -0400

Dear all,

I've seen the resolution on Alvara's DISCUSS.
Looking at 
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-07.txt, 
there are so MUST, SHOULD, MAY modified to their lower case respective 
names that I wonder...
Instead of going this easier path, shouldn't we have use the RFC 2119 
keywords all over the place and create a clear spec according to today's 
"standard", read RFC 2119 keywords.

Btw draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis doesn't use any RFC2119 keywords (which 
is weird these days) and doesn't contain a note such as:

At least, we should target consistency.

Regards, Benoit