Subject: Re: 2119bis

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:28:55 -0400 (EDT)

I've been traveling so have not had a chance to do anything but watch
the discussion on a RFC 2119 update.

a few thoughts

1/ I am far from convinced that there is a need to update RFC 2119
      there is a bug in the boilerplate (as has been mentioned) 
      and some people seem to have a hard time understanding what 
      (to me) seem like clear descriptions of (for example) MUST & 
      SHOULD - but the issues do not seem serious enough to warrant
      replacing what is, basically, a simple dictionary & usage 
      constraint

2/ it seems like a very Bad Idea to move 2119 to historic- we move
     RFCs to historic when no one uses them or when they are a Bad
     Idea in light of updated technology - I do not think that makes 
     much sense in this case - in addition it makes the status of RFCs
     that have a normative reference to a historic document a bit
     funky - if an update is actually needed there is no reason that
     I can come up with that it could not just be that -- an update

3/ I doubt that I'll ever catch up with Postel as the most referenced
     RFC author so that is not a consideration (for me)

I wrote RFC 2119 (most using text from RFC 1122) because people were
using MUST without saying what they meant, an update, if people think
that one is actually needed, will serve that purpose as well as 2119 has.  

When I posted the original ID it was pointed out that I should also
address when such terms should be used (i.e. try to limit the use to
where it actually made sense protocol-wise) - I tried to do that but
that part may not have been as successful as it might have been - any
update might try to be clearer in this area that RFC 2119 is.

Scott

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:10:12 -0400

While 2119 is being discussed, I thought I'd mention a small I-D that 
Dave Crocker and I wrote on terminology that might be used in places 
where 2119 ought not apply. It's

     Non-Normative Synonyms in RFCs
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-01

Thoughts on this draft would be appreciated as well.

     Tony Hansen
     [email-masked]

On 8/31/2011 9:28 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>        (to me) seem like clear descriptions of (for example) MUST&
>        replacing what is, basically, a simple dictionary&  usage
>        constraint
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:27:29 +0300

Isn't it already incorporated in Section 3 of 2119bis:

>     When it is not appropriate to use the conformance terms, authors can
>     use a variety of alternative words and phrases, such as: "need to" or
>     "mandatory" instead of "MUST"; "ought to" or "strongly encouraged"
>     instead of "SHOULD"; and "might" or "discretionary" instead of "MAY".
>     To prevent confusion, authors ought to use these alternative words
>     and phrases instead of the lowercase versions of the conformance
>     terms, and to use the conformance terms only in their uppercase
>     versions.

Mykyta