Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] SCTP and NAT traversal in the Applicability Statement .

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:19:57 +0300

Hi Randy,

> Is the appl statement a Informational RFC or a Standards
> track RFC? I can't remember... but I do think that if
> it is the former you MUST NOT use SHOULD/MUST MAY :-)
> Only if it is standards track can you use this wording... or
> then again I may be wrong :/ its late here and I am tired..

I'm not going to fuss about this one.  There is a lot of other
things to fuss about :P

2119 says:

   In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
   the requirements in the specification.  These words are often
   capitalized.  This document defines these words as they should be
   interpreted in IETF documents.  Authors who follow these guidelines
   should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:

      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
      RFC 2119.

   Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement
   level of the document in which they are used.

so, the $64,000 guestions is, does the AS imply any requirements.  If
so, I suggest using MUST, SHOULD, etc.  If it is not setting (or implying)
requirements, then it is a non-issue.

John

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 06:21:02 -0400 (EDT)

Good point John.  For rfc2553bis (base API for IPv6) we use MUST and
SHOULDs and it is informational RFC and we had many conversations about
should vs must.  

/jim

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:32:18 +0100 (BST)

> SHOULDs and it is informational RFC and we had many conversations about

If it's informational, they'll all get transmogrified to lower case
before leaving the RFC editor's hands. Or it will get kicked back for
a rewrite.

An informational document can't imply requirements...

L.

> > requirements, then it is a non-issue.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:51:39 -0400 (EDT)

Yes this appears to be the cases.

thanks

/jim