Subject: [pcp] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 05:29:54 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-08: No Objection

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My DISCUSS was:
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?

I received this message:
  the authors have discussed with the doc shepherd and the AD that 
  not a single statement in the document has to be reinforced by a MUST,

  in order to insure interoperability or avoid unneccessary harm to the 
  Internet as a whole[1]. There are two sentences where a SHOULD would 
  make some sense, but leaving it as is does not seem too bad either.  So

  we decided to move forward without introducing RFC 2119 language.

So some RFC 2119 keyword would make sense, but the responsible AD doesn't
insist on doing what's right.
I'm surprised. This is a bad signal for future documents. However, I
won't stand in the way but I want my 
point of view to be archived in this COMMENT.