Subject: [EAI] 4952bis and 2119 boilerplate (and the forthcoming 4952bis-06)

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:59:48 -0400

Hi.

Joseph has been working on the document shepherd report for
4952bis.  It is just about ready to go but, in reviewing that
work, checking with the idnits checker, etc., we've discovered
that 

	(1) The 2119 statement isn't quite in the current format
	used by the RFC Editor.
	
	(2) There are a few instances of "must", etc. (works
	that might be 2119 keywords), that are not properly
	capitalized.
	
	(3) There is still a question as to whether this
	document should really be Informational or Standards
	Track.

I will be issuing yet-another version of 4952bis later today to
reflect those changes and only those changes.  Unless I commit
some major screw up, I don't believe that there is any reason
for anyone who has reviewed -04 or -05 to review the forthcoming
-06.

With regard to (3) above, unless someone strongly disagrees, I
believe that we should reflect the issue in the shepherd write
up and tell the IESG that, if they want to make the document
standards track, the WG won't object.  If they leave it as
Informational, as I think they probably will, I propose to add a
sentence to the 2119 paragraph so that it will read:

	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
	"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",
	"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
	interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
	Although this document is Informational, those
	requirements are consistent with requirements specified
	in the Standards Track documents in this set as
	described in Section 5.

The first sentence was copied from the recently-published RFC
5891 and presumably reflects the latest preferences of the RFC
Editor (abbreviated forms such as "... as described in
[RFC2119]" violate a whole series of rule about English writing
and citation style).  The second is something we will need to
verify as the other documents come along but gets this one off
the hook in the "should there be normative language, or
normative-sounding language, in Informational documents" debate.

Again, we consider these changes to fall in the editorial and
procedural category and will go ahead with them in the absence
of strong and immediate objections.

     john

---

From: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:13:33 +0000

Sounds fine to me.

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:59:48 -0400
From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [EAI] 4952bis and 2119 boilerplate (and the forthcoming
	4952bis-06)
To: EAI WG <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hi.

Joseph has been working on the document shepherd report for 4952bis.  It is just about ready to go but, in reviewing that work, checking with the idnits checker, etc., we've discovered that 

	

I will be issuing yet-another version of 4952bis later today to reflect those changes and only those changes.  Unless I commit some major screw up, I don't believe that there is any reason for anyone who has reviewed -04 or -05 to review the forthcoming -06.

With regard to (3) above, unless someone strongly disagrees, I believe that we should reflect the issue in the shepherd write up and tell the IESG that, if they want to make the document standards track, the WG won't object.  If they leave it as Informational, as I think they probably will, I propose to add a sentence to the 2119 paragraph so that it will read:

The first sentence was copied from the recently-published RFC
5891 and presumably reflects the latest preferences of the RFC Editor (abbreviated forms such as "... as described in [RFC2119]" violate a whole series of rule about English writing and citation style).  The second is something we will need to verify as the other documents come along but gets this one off the hook in the "should there be normative language, or normative-sounding language, in Informational documents" debate.

Again, we consider these changes to fall in the editorial and procedural category and will go ahead with them in the absence of strong and immediate objections.

     john