Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 06:56:37 -0700

On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:48 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
> discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
> thanking you.

This is a useless change to a very stable document. No one reading RFCs misunderstands what "if" and "else" mean.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:39:37 +0200

> This is a useless change to a very stable document. No one reading RFCs
> misunderstands what "if" and "else" mean.

We don't change the RFC2119 (IETF RFCs never can be changed) its only
update, no one before ever misunderstood "may" and "should" either but
capital letters made difference. However, thanks for your comments,

AB

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 07:47:52 -0800

> capital letters made difference. However, thanks for your comments,

To the contrary - people confuse MAY and SHOULD all the time.
Regardless, you're not solving anything resembling an actual
problem.

Melinda

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:03:59 -0400

> discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,

I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said.  This document is pointless,
as there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderstanding
that it's clarifying.  Further, it's actively *harmful*.  It's arguable
that 2119 already reserves too many words by giving them specific,
normative meanings (SHALL *and* MUST; SHOULD *and* RECOMMENDED).  Adding
IF, THEN, and ELSE would not only be unnecessary, but downright *bad*.

Barry

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:08:07 -0700

On Aug 1, 2012, at 7:39 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> update,

An update is a change.

> no one before ever misunderstood "may" and "should" either but
> capital letters made difference.

Both clauses in that sentence are incorrect. People very much misunderstood "should", which was one of the primary purposes for nailing it down in RFC 2119. The capital letters don't actually make the difference, the definition of the words make the difference.

> However, thanks for your comments,

No problem.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:27:56 -0700

+1 to Barry, well said.

On 01/08/2012, at 9:03 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said.  This document is pointless, as there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderstanding that it's clarifying.  Further, it's actively *harmful*.  It's arguable that 2119 already reserves too many words by giving them specific, normative meanings (SHALL *and* MUST; SHOULD *and* RECOMMENDED).  Adding IF, THEN, and ELSE would not only be unnecessary, but downright *bad*.
> 
> Barry 

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:39:39 +0100

Barry,
 
Did you mean "bad" or "BAD"?
 
A
 
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: 01 August 2012 17:04
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt

I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said.  This document is pointless, as
there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderstanding that it's
clarifying.  Further, it's actively *harmful*.  It's arguable that 2119 already
reserves too many words by giving them specific, normative meanings (SHALL *and*
MUST; SHOULD *and* RECOMMENDED).  Adding IF, THEN, and ELSE would not only be
unnecessary, but downright *bad*.
 
Barry

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:05:43 +0200

> that it's clarifying.

It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify
conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need. Please note
that "IF THEN" is reducing the number of words in the draft as well
(more efficient). Please tell me what specification can specify a
conditional situation in less words than "IF, THEN". Many RFC don't
follow the easy way properly,

> Further, it's actively *harmful*.

I implemented some RFC that don't specify "if, then", and it was
harmful for me. I don't know what kind of harmful that the update will
make, please explain by an example. Do you mean harmful to the
reviewers or to the draft authors. Please note that we should make the
internet a better place for ALL not only for authors.

> It's arguable

It is necessary, and the words in RFC2119 are not many if we compare
with our RFCs pages.

I thank you for your comments,

AB

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:12:20 -0800

On 8/1/2012 9:05 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need.

It's pretty clear that you'd like to be involved with the work
of the IETF in some way.  Allow me to suggest that a more productive
approach might be to identify a working group in your area of
expertise, review their documents, provide feedback on those
documents, and write text or new documents to address any gaps.
There is work to be done and there are problems to solve.  What
you are doing now is not helpful.

Melinda

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 20:15:19 +0300

He meant "PILLAR OF SALT"

On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

Barry,

A

From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: 01 August 2012 17:04
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt

Barry

Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:21:45 +0000

Agreed. I suggest we stop discussing this proposal.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:22:44 +0100

Thanks Yoav,
 
I don't get a lot of citations for that one :-)
 
From: Yoav Nir [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 01 August 2012 18:15
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Barry Leiba; Abdussalam Baryun; ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt

Barry,

A

 
 
Barry

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 12:33:25 -0500

>conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need.

normative language is for implementers, not education for users - at 
least as its primary goal. Implementations can be configured to 
comply and not comply with one or more RFCs, based on the needs of 
the customer and the desire of the implementer (i.e., vendor) to want 
the sale of their equipment to that customer. This fact is commonly 
misunderstood. Melinda has wise words

>Please note

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:44:10 +0200

Hi Melinda,

I am already involved, and volunteering work, I done many reviews and
comments in two WGs, and will hopfuly continue if people are
welcoming. However, I thank you for your comments,

AB
======
The mission of the Internet Engineering Task Force is to make the
Internet work better by producing high-quality and relevant technical
documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the
Internet
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Melinda

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:48:10 -0700

> follow the easy way properly,

Yes but that's an editing issue.  Go look at how process documentation
and state machines are handled in serious protocol RFCs.  Some do use
if/then in a formal way, but some are just informative.  The purpose
of 2119 is clarity of terminology.  Everyone knows what "if" and
"then" mean - your concern is how they are used.  The way to fix that
is in the particular drafts you have an issue with.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 20:19:50 +0200

> of 2119 is clarity of terminology.

That is good when they use, I seen thoes, but how can we use
terminology so that don't collide, some people use 2119 terms that are
not condition, to describe conditions.

>  Everyone knows what "if" and
> "then" mean - your concern is how they are used.

Yes my concern is how/when use terms not meaning of terms. Ok,  What
about "MUST" (every one know it), wasn't it clear as "if then", please
explain why capital?

> The way to fix that

 I did put that in one draft already as you say and one participant
before suggest. but I am thinking for the future works and to make the
authors document the specification they implemented more efficiently
without using 2119 terms in conditional and

I thank you for your comments, your email will be more concsidered,

AB

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:21:38 -0700

>about "MUST" (every one know it), wasn't it clear as "if then", please

You are probably receiving feedback on your draft because the WG 
sessions this week are boring. :-)  The is a thread about "all caps" 
at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73338.html  I 
suggest reading RFC 1122 and RFC 1123 to get a view of how some 
specifications were written and why they were written in such a way.

Melinda Shore provided some good advice ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74191.html ).  I 
would not say that your draft is not helpful.  It is up to you to 
assess whether draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00 can gain IETF Consensus.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:52:54 -0400

Mr Baryun, the world was once flat! I commend your efforts.  Who 
knows? Maybe you have the seeds here for the development of a protocol 
expert system, AI based protocol design-configuration systems using 
SBPT "Structured Block Protocol Technology" as a language and tool to 
make the world jump!

Go West! or is that Go East! these days.

-- 
HLS

-- 
HLS

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:19:00 +0200

Hi SM,

Thanks for your comments, I will note your feedback and follow to read
into these issues as you advise, thanking you,

Best Regards
AB
======

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:14:51 -0700

>> follow the easy way properly,
A Change to the interpretation of normative language does not 
retroactively apply to existing documents.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:32:58 -0700

> retroactively apply to existing documents.

welcome to the 21st century.  the ietf has become a shiny thing (thanks
jc) which attracts.  many do not understand the technology, computer
science, engineering, ...  but they do understand process politics.
[politely] ignore their fumblings, focus on real work, and endure.

randy

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 08:47:54 -0700

> IF, THEN, and ELSE would not only be unnecessary, but downright *bad*.
If I may quote Blazing Saddles:

Reverend!

("+1", for those unfamiliar.)

-MSK

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:38:40 +0100

> retroactively apply to existing documents.

Shucks! Really?

I was hoping I could automatically change the behavior of deployed routers by
updating the meaning of some words in published RFCs. You mean I can't do that?

A